Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Another Insignificant Obama Victory

Atleast you would think listening to the Clinton campaign. With every Obama victory, and the Clinton campaign spin, you really begin to understand the race. Obama, a candidate with broad appeal has won in the pacific northwest (Washington), the mountainwest (Utah/Wyoming/Idaho), the midwest (Iowa/Illinois/Wisconsin), the northeast (Vermont/Maine) and much of the south. Clinton's claim of winning the big states by narrow margins isn't a compelling reason for Clinton to claim the nomination and garner up super-delegates.

Watching James Carville on the news the other night poo-poo Obama's victories in Idawho? etc., you can see the internal disagreement between Howard Dean's 50 state strategy and the politicos who surround the Clintons who only want a strategic majority. A typical feature of the polico mindset, is in order to acheive power, they tend to give up any hope of a mandate to accomplish the important objectives they claim to want to acheive.

A President Obama, popular in Mississippi, Idaho, Utah and Iowa, can translate that popularity with pressure on those in the legislative branch in those states to work with the President, rather than roadblock him. Clinton may win, but her divisiveness may get her the Presidency, but the title will be shallow when she fails to deliver the goods.

This post is a call-out to superdelegates such as Karen Hale who has committed to Hillary. The people of Utah were loud and clear in their support for Barak Obama. Clinton's campaign has shown that they don't care about little insignificant states such as Utah and enabling this behavior must stop. I think it is time that we unify our party around a candidate with broad appeal, with a message of unity and hope. That candidate is Barak Obama.

This message brought to you by the Obi wan liberali for Vice President committee

3 comments:

rmwarnick said...

I guess Democrats, independents and crossover Republican voters need to think about whether we want the 2008 election to be another squeaker or a landslide that might help the next administration move this country back on the right track.

I don't know if Obama can deliver a landslide but Hillary definitely can't.

Cameron said...

Obama can win over Democrats in Idaho, but since there's only about 3 of them there, it doesn't really mean much. There is absolutely no way that Obama or any other Democratic candidate is carrying Idaho in November. I think that is Hillary and Carville's point.

Of course, it can be argued that Obama's got enough appeal in other, up for grabs states that losing Idaho won't matter.

David said...

Another of the hollow claims from the Clinton camp needs to be addressed as well - the one that says that Obama hasn't won any of the large states that would be needed to win the general election.

Someone needs to point out to Clinton that those states are likely to back any Democrat, and that Obama taking second in each of those states still garnered more votes that McCain winning on the Republican side. Combined with the arguments that you just made, it should be a no-brainer for the super-delegates as to who the Democrats should be nominating in Denver.