Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 21st, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog
Reference: see Wikipedia’s article - Electoral College (United States) for more information.
The rules for the election of the President of the United States are quite simple and clear. Unlike the rules of political parties, these general election rules are laws based on the U.S. Constitution and Amendments.
The Electoral College has 538 Electoral Votes:
The President is NOT elected by the popular vote, but rather by the electoral votes of the “electoral college”.
All fifty states plus Washington, D.C. have at least three electoral votes. The total number of electoral votes is 538. This is known as the “electoral college”. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes, which is the “magic number” of 270. (538 divided by 2 equals 269, and 269 plus 1 equals 270).
The presidential election focus between now and November 4th is on analyzing the electoral map and attaining this number.
Below is the electoral map of the 2004 Presidential Election:
(See our Free 2008 Presidential Electoral Vote Calculator Map. This includes a point-and-click interactive map that enables you to explore election scenarios. The map shows the 2008 red, blue, and toss-up states based on recent polls. You can also quickly see the electoral map results of the last five presidential elections.)
The number of electoral votes for each state is based on adding the number of U.S. Senators (always two) plus the number of U.S. Representatives, which varies according to population (each state has at least one Representative, and California has the most with 53). For example, Missouri has two U.S. Senators and nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives, so Missouri has a total of 11 electoral votes. Washington, D.C. gets 3 electoral votes based on the Twenty-third Amendment adopted in 1961.
Winner-Take-All vs. Maine and Nebraska Exceptions:
Each state legislature determines the rules for how the electoral votes of the state are awarded to candidates. All the states and Washington, D.C. have a “winner-take-all” system, except for Maine and Nebraska. Under “winner-take-all”, the candidate who gets the most votes (the “popular vote”) in the state wins all of the electoral votes of the state.
Maine and Nebraska award the electoral votes based on each congressional district. Maine has four congressional districts and Nebraska has five. The candidate who wins the most votes in a congressional district gets the one electoral vote for that district. Therefore, Maine and Nebraska could split their electoral votes among the candidates, but this has never actually happened.
What if no candidate wins the majority of electoral votes?
If no candidates wins the majority of electoral votes, the U.S. House of Representatives votes on who will be the next President. This can happen and did happen in 1824.
There is an important difference between who wins the most votes and a “majority”. A majority is 50% plus one. Sometimes a candidate wins the most votes but does not win a majority, especially when more than two parties have strong candidates. This is called a “plurality”, not a “majority”.
In the election of 1824, Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes, but won only a plurality, not a majority. Jackson also won the popular vote (which never officially matters). The decision went to the U.S. House of Representatives, and the House elected President John Quincy Adams. This was one of the most controversial elections in U.S. history and led to the emergency of the Democratic Party as the first “modern” political party in the U.S. In 1828 Andrew Jackson won the presidency with a majority of electoral votes.
The presidential elections of 1824, 1876, and 2000 were especially controversial and well worth studying.
The Electoral College must Certify the Election
Technically, the Electoral College is comprised of 538 people who are designated officials representing the electoral votes from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. These 538 representatives must officially certify the election. They are “expected” to vote in accordance with the electoral vote of their states (or congressional district in the cases of Maine and Nebraska). However, these 538 electors legally can vote for whomever they wish.
This electoral college body has never overturned the electoral map results, but this possibility exists. If you look at Minnesota in the map above, you will see a little circle with the number “1″. All ten of Minnesota’s electoral votes were “expected” to go to John Kerry, however, one of Minnesota’s electors voted for John Edwards instead of Kerry.
Implications of the General Election Rules: Red States vs. Blue States:
General election strategy necessarily focuses on attaining the 270 magic number. In recent presidential elections, the electoral map has been fairly static. News media have standardized the map discussion by always displaying Republican states in red and Democratic states in blue.
The map (above) of the 2004 election is essentially the “strategic starting point” for the 2008 election between John McCain and Barack Obama. Many states are considered “solidly red” or “solidly blue” (a.k.a., “safe” states). Recently, Republican candidates have won most of the Southern states and also the Western states between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Coast states. Democratic candidates have won most of the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Pacific Coast states.
General election campaign strategy focuses on trying to win the “swing states”. These may be states that recently voted for the Democratic candidate, but in other recent elections voted for the Republican. Some swing states consistently voted for one party, but only by very narrow margins. Also, some states change over time and come into “play”. Demographic changes and other internal political changes can move a state’s allegiance from one party to another. Any state that is in “play” for whatever reason is a swing state and also called a “battleground state”.
For the 2000 and 2004 elections, the following states were among the swing states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire. Most analysts expect these same states to be battleground states in 2008.
Barack Obama’s campaign hopes to put additional states in play. The Southwest may be changing enough for the Democrats to win at least one of these: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada. Also, Obama hopes to win at least one of these Southern states: North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and maybe others. Obama could also win one or more Western states, such as South Dakota or Kansas.
John McCain’s campaign strategy involves winning most of the swing states from the last two elections and also trying to put Oregon and New Jersey into play.
Visit Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. This is a great resource and shows the electoral map of every presidential election in history and includes many details.
Quick History Lesson - the Election of 1876:
The Samuel Tilden-Rutherford Hayes election of 1876 was the ultimate political controversy with four disputed states, including Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon. With no agreement on how to count the electoral votes of the disputed four states, Tilden had a plurality but not a majority. Think of the Gore vs. Bush Florida controversy in the 2000 election, then multiply it by four. The result was the infamous “Compromise of 1877″ or “Tilden-Hayes Compromise”, worked out via back-room deals. Republican Hayes was given the presidency over Democrat Tilden in exchange for a railroad in the South and Southwest. Most importantly, the Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction, thus opening the flood gates to extend Jim Crow laws denying civil rights and voting rights for African-Americans.
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 15th, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Talk Radio, John McCain, Blog
Last week the Obama campaign announced the opening of a new website: FightTheSmears.com.
The unfair and ridiculous attacks against Barack Obama are numerous and frequent. The new Obama website addresses some of the smears against Obama and directly and convincingly refutes them. FightTheSmears.com as a web-based rapid-response tactic is an interesting and significant development in the election campaign.
Political attacks come in all shapes and sizes. Of course, political smears are nothing new and I think go back to the first cave council elections in 56,742 B.C.
Often candidates directly attack their opponents in debates, official statements, and campaign commercials. This is a legitimate and above-board tactic because the candidate who is attacking must be accountable for the message. Sometimes the message is unfair, but at least it is out in the open for discussion, and the attacked candidate can choose how to respond directly to the attacker.
Barack Obama and John McCain have already engaged in some good clean “debate” on substantive issues. Both campaigns will do plenty of “spinning” to paint their opponent negatively and themselves positively. No doubt, some of their statements will be unfair and perhaps even blatantly false. But, I have some faith that both McCain and Obama want to run clean campaigns and will not tolerate smear tactics by their official surrogates.
A political smear is when people (often anonymous) create a lie about a candidate and aggressively spread the rumor. A smear campaign (focused in South Carolina) against John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries possibly impacted the contest enough to guarantee that George Bush would win the Republican nomination that year. That was an example of an effective “whisper” campaign because no one was accountable yet the disgraceful rumor spread widely.
Swift-Boating is a new verb:
During the 2004 presidential election campaign, a political group ironically named “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SWVT)” sponsored a $546,000 advertising campaign to air television commercials attacking Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.[ref] The ads focused on undermining the reputation of Senator Kerry’s military service as a highly decorated officer and veteran of the Vietnam War. Right-wing radio talks shows picked up on the SWVT message and repeatedly perpetuated this line of attack on Kerry. Many analysts believe that John Kerry and his campaign failed to recognize the seriousness of this smear. Kerry and his campaign were slow to respond and this may have cost Kerry the election.
527 Political Groups:
SWVT was one of many 527 political groups, as described by Wikipedia:
A 527 group is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 527. A 527 group is created primarily to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office. Although candidate committees and political action committees are also created under Section 527, the term is generally used to refer to political organizations that are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission or by a state elections commission, and are not subject to the same contribution limits as PACs.
527s are key in recent presidential elections. They legally can (and do) pour unlimited millions of dollars into attack ad campaigns while operating as officially separate from any candidate’s campaign. 527s fly beneath the radar of campaign finance reform. Expect to hear much more about 527s as we approach the general election.
One argument is that a campaign should not respond to smears because doing so simply helps advertise the falsehood. The Obama campaign decided that it is better to respond. Barack Obama has been and will be smeared. “Swift-boating” is the spreading of the lies, but a candidate is “swift boated” only if the smear works. FightTheSmears.com helps prevent Obama from being “swift boated”.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 7th, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
Hillary Clinton gave an important speech today to thousands of her supporters gathered at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C.
Senator Clinton said:
“The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.”
“Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulated him on the victory he has won . . . I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.
Clinton’s speech was powerful and moving, perhaps one of the greatest concession speeches in U.S. history. I cannot recall a more important one.
Watch Hillary Clinton’s full speech:
For months many have wondered “What will Hillary Clinton Do?” Some suggested that she would not concede and would take the fight for the nomination all the way to the Democratic Party National Convention in Denver, August 25-28.
Today Clinton’s speech for Obama ended all speculation as she echoed a mantra of the Obama campaign: “Yes we can!” Clinton fulfilled an important campaign promise that she would give full support to the Democratic Party nominee once all the votes were counted.
Democrats must be ecstatic to see yet another extraordinary event in the 2008 Presidential campaign.
I am especially moved by this line from Senator Clinton’s speech:
“Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it has about 18 million cracks in it and the light is shining through like never before.”
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are essential for an Obama and Democratic Party victory over Republican John McCain in November, 2008.
Some pundits suggested the Hillary Clinton’s speech today was an audition to be Barack Obama’s running mate.
Vote in Our Opinion Poll about the Obama/Clinton “Dream Ticket”.
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 5th, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
Here is the full text of Hillary Clinton’s email to her supporters:
Subject: I want you to know
Dear John,Â
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party’s nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you — and everyone who supported me — a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I’m going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 4th, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
Today a number of Hillary Clinton’s supporters in the U.S. Congress had a conference call with Senator Clinton and urged her to end her campaign and to endorse Barack Obama. Clinton agreed with this advice, and she is expected to endorse Obama in the next few days. The plan is to have a closed meeting on Friday with her close allies and then have a public announcement on Saturday.
This development is a major step in the direction of party unity and healing for the Democrats.
Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, some of the most fanatic supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have visceral hatred for their rival Democratic Party candidate. Some staunch Hillary Clinton voters are so angry that they say they will vote for John McCain in November. Likewise, some Obama voters vehemently oppose the suggested Obama/Clinton “dream ticket” and may not even vote for Obama if Clinton is his running mate.
This level of animosity strikes me as unhealthy. If you really think either Obama or Clinton is so great, why not listen to what they are saying? Both Clinton and Obama have expressed admiration for each other and have urged their supporters to unite for the Democratic Party and its presidential nominee, who is Obama as of yesterday. Is this just a cult of personality or do the issues matter too?
People have their reasons and we have the right to vote how we want without providing reasons.
Almost all Democrats will vote for Barack Obama in November. Obama will also need many votes from independents, especially in “swing states”. Clinton voters who vote for McCain are ultimately disrespectful of Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is passionate about the issues and also about her Democratic Party. “Obamaniacs” must respect Barack Obama’s choice for running mate, especially if his choice is Hillary Clinton.
“Obamaniacs” and “Clintonistas” must unite or John McCain is the next president.
The Democratic Party must do some “political triage”. Many people are already onboard the Obama train. Democrats must energize and mobilize these voters. A few people are so angry that they are hopeless. It’s best to isolate and ignore them. The Democrats must focus on winning over the group of voters that is still undecided but open to voting for Obama and the Democratic Party in 2008.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can accomplish more now that they are united than they ever could do separately.
Vote in Our Opinion Poll about the Obama/Clinton “Dream Ticket”.
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 3rd, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Blog
Tonight we witnessed history as Barack Obama became the first African-American presidential nominee of a major party in the United States.
The historic and epic battle for the Democratic Party presidential nomination is over. Barack Obama finally emerged as the “presumptive” nominee of the Democrats. Today a wave of super delegates announced their support for Obama. These additional Obama delegates along with the South Dakota and Montana primary results put Obama’s numbers over the top, exceeding the necessary “magic number” of 2,118 delegates.
Barack Obama gave a rousing speech to an enthusiastic crowd of over 17,000 supporters in St. Paul, Minnesota. Watch Obama’s speech:
Sphere: Related Content
1 Comment »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 3rd, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
Barack Obama is now the “presumptive” presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Â
The final day of the 2008 Democratic primary season ended with Barack Obama winning Montana and Hillary Clinton winning South Dakota.
The nomination came down to the last day and every vote was counted. This has been an amazing journey for the history books.
*************Â BOX SCORES ***********************
GAME 1 - South Dakota
Delegates:Â Â Clinton:Â 9Â Â Â Â |Â Obama: 6
% of vote:Â Â Â Clinton: 55%Â |Â Obama: 45%
vote totals: Clinton: 54,014 |Â Obama: 43,574
keys to the game: white middle class voters, Westerners, more rural, less historical racial division.
GAME 2 - Montana
Delegates:Â Â Clinton:Â 7Â Â Â Â Â Â |Â Obama: 9
% of vote:Â Â Â Clinton: 41%Â |Â Obama: 57%
vote totals: Clinton: 74,702Â |Â Obama: 102,373
keys to the game: white middle class voters, Westerners, more rural, less historical racial division.
************* SCHEDULE Â ************************
On to the General Election November 4th, 2004!
- Democratic Party National Convention: August 25-28, Denver, Colorado
- Republican Party National Convention: September 1-4, St. Paul, Minnesota
- Debates between John McCain and Barack Obama, to be determined.
- Much more ahead!
************* STANDINGS ************************
*Delegate Count: Obama clinches the nomination!
Obama: 2,158 (total), 1763 (pledged), 395 (super delegates)
Clinton:Â 1,926 (total), 1640 (pledged), 286 (super delegates)
Edwards: 6 (total), 6 (pledged), 0 (super delegates)
* Updated June 4, 2008, according to CNN.
2,118 delegates required to win the nomination.
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 1st, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
The Puerto Rico primary results are in: Clinton overwhelmed Obama 68% to 32%.
*************Â WRAPÂ ******************************Â
Today Hillary Clinton predictably and decisively defeated Barack Obama in Puerto Rico’s primary. Clinton gained 38 pledged delegates and Obama added 17, putting him within 48 delegates of clinching the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination.
This is a bit anti-climactic for the Clinton campaign. Yesterday’s Democratic Party resolution of the Florida and Michigan controversies ended yet another avenue for Clinton to change the outcome. Puerto Rico’s primary gave Clinton a net gain of 21 delegates, but this is much too little, much too late.
In her victory speech, Hillary Clinton ended by promising repeatedly to “keep on fighting”. Obama also gave an interesting speech today at the Corn Palace in Mitchell, South Dakota. Obama’s speech focused on defeating John McCain in November.Â
Tuesday finally marks the end of the road. Soon “every vote will be counted” and Hillary Clinton loses another “talking point”.
I am happy to see Puerto Rico and all states/territories have a voice in the nomination process.
Hopefully you already know this:
Puerto Ricans are full U.S. citizens. Puerto Rico does not have any electoral votes for the general election because it is not a state. Many Puerto Rican voters are residents throughout the 50 states, especially in New York City, Chicago, and other urban areas.
Obligatory demographic discussion:
Obama needs to continue to improve his standing among Latino voters, but he already has some solid Latino support as a strong base on which to build. Latinos typically vote about 60% Democratic to 40% Republican, and often even higher for Democrats. Of course, Puerto Ricans are a separate demographic box than Mexican-Americans and other Latinos, but the voting patterns are similar inside the bigger Latino box. Puerto Ricans are among the most loyal Democratic Party voters of any demographic group. Obama could easily get overwhelming vote percentages from Latinos in the general election against John McCain.
*************Â BOX SCORE ************************
Puerto Rico
Delegates:Â Â Clinton: 38Â Â Â Â |Â Obama: 17
% of vote:Â Â Â Clinton: 68%Â |Â Obama: 32%
vote totals: Clinton: 263,120 |Â Obama: 121,458
keys to the game: Latino working class voters, lower-middle income, Clinton name recognition.
************* SCHEDULE Â ************************
2Â primaries contests remain (the number of delegates at stake is in parentheses):
- June 3rd: Montana (16) and South Dakota (15)
Also, we are waiting for approximately 200 super delegates to announce their intentions.
The last day is Tuesday!
************* STANDINGS ************************
*Delegate Count: Obama needs 48 more delegates to clinch the nomination.
Obama: 2070 (total), 1741 (pledged), 329 (super delegates)
Clinton:Â 1915 (total), 1624 (pledged), 291 (super delegates)
Edwards:Â 13 (total), 13Â (pledged), 0 (super delegates)
* Updated June 1, 2008, according to CNN.
2,118 delegates required to win the nomination.
Note on delegate counts: each news agency has its own set of numbers. This is primarily due to the complex rules involved in awarding delegates to the candidates. I’ve been using CNN as a baseline, but this is somewhat arbitrary and not an endorsement of CNN. Their website updates the count frequently and I find it easy to use and informative. See MSNBC and FoxNews for alternative delegate counts.
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 1st, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog, Democratic Party Rules
On Saturday, the Democratic Party’s Rules Committee finally settled on the new rules for seating delegates from Florida and Michigan.
The Rules Committee reduced its punishment of the Florida and Michigan state Democratic Party organizations. Originally, the Rules Committee stripped these states of all their delegates as a sanction for violating the rule of holding primaries before Super Tuesday. See my earlier posts in the category of “Democratic Party Rules“ for background information and opinions on the Florida and Michigan delegate controversies.
Also, read this summary from Yahoo! News and CNN’s summary.
New Rules and Numbers as of Saturday, May 31st:
- Basically, all delegates from Florida and Michigan will go to the Democratic Party National Convention in Denver, August 25-28, and participate in the formal nomination of the party’s presidential candidate. Each delegate from these states will have half a vote, instead of a full vote, granted to all the other delegates.
Â
- Clinton picks up delegates: 105 from Florida, 69 from Michigan, with a total of 87 votes.
Â
- Obama also gained delegates: 67 from Florida, 59 from Michigan, with a total of 63 votes.
Â
- Adding the Florida and Michigan half-vote delegates changes the “magic number”. 2118 is the new “magic number” of total delegates needed to win the nomination; the old number was 2,026.
Â
- The new rules move back the goal post for Barack Obama. Obama previously needed only 48 more delegates to clinch the nomination, now he needs 67.Â
****** LATEST STANDINGS ************************
*Delegate Count: Obama needs 67 more delegates to clinch the nomination.
Obama: 2051 (total), 1724 (pledged), 327 (super delegates)
Clinton: 1887 (total), 1586 (pledged), 291 (super delegates)
Edwards: 13 (total), 13 (pledged), 0 (super delegates)
* Updated May 31, 2008, according to CNN.
2,118 delegates required to win the nomination.
*****************************************************
Is everybody happy?
Of course not. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its Rules Committee have supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both the Clinton and Obama camps came to Saturday’s meeting with proposals to resolve the Florida and Michigan disputes. Neither side got exactly what it wanted, but that’s the nature of compromise. Clinton gained more delegate votes than Obama, which was significant because the Rules Committee had the option to stick with its original decision to NOT seat any delegates from Florida and Michigan.
Nevertheless, the Clinton campaign continues to raise objections and argues that Clinton should have received an additional four delegates from Michigan. Here is an official statement from Clinton campaign operatives Harold Ickes and Tina Flourney:
Today’s results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party’s convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.
We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan. The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.
Conversely, Obama supporters argue that they were quite conciliatory toward the Clinton campaign. As reported in Yahoo! News:
Allan Katz, a Rules Committee member and Obama supporter, said the Obama campaign had enough votes on the committee to support the campaign’s proposal to split the delegates 50-50 in Michigan. Ultimately, the campaign agreed instead to support the compromise negotiated by the Michigan Democratic Party as a way to resolve the matter.
“The ironic thing is Obama had the majority of that committee,” Katz said. “The Obama campaign wants to move on and compromise. We did not muscle our way through it. It was a wise decision from a well run and wise campaign that will reverberate.”
Once Barack Obama clinches the nomination and exceeds the necessary total of 2118 by a comfortable margin, maybe his campaign will simply give Clinton the four disputed delegates as yet another gesture of magnanimity to further unite the Democratic Party. Of course, some day Hillary Clinton may finally accept that Barack Obama is the 2008 presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.
Sphere: Related Content
1 Comment »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 24th, 2008 — in Referee whistle, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mainstream Media, Blog
In South Dakota yesterday, Hillary Clinton made a very unfortunate comment during an interview with the Editorial Board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader newspaper.
While discussing why some people want her to end her campaign, Clinton said the following:
I don’t, because again, I’ve been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June.
We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is.
This video of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann is the most passionate criticism of Clinton’s statement that I have heard:
See these related links:
My commentary on this controversy:
I agree with much of Keith Olbermann’s commentary. It seems that every time I write something positive about Hillary Clinton, the next day she sparks a new, unfortunate, ill-advised controversy. I have always had a “soft spot” for Hillary Clinton because I don’t like the way she has been unfairly demonized over the years. Sadly, her 2008 campaign has alienated many people unnecessarily.
These recent remarks by Clinton cross a line, touch the third rail. Obviously, her comments were not intentionally meant this way. But it shows a lack of judgment. She should know better than anyone else to be more thoughtful in presenting her political messages. Everyone makes mistakes, and when we do, it is important to correct them as effectively as possible. Her “apology” was oblivious to the seriousness of her mistake.
I have gone out on a limb by advocating an Obama/Clinton ticket. I’ve always had doubts about this, but I have thought the potential upside outweighs the downside. Today I am much less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton.
I do believe in redemption. Hopefully, her next attempt at an apology will invoke her “better angels”. Hillary Clinton needs to prove that she can transcend her own narrow political ambitions. She needs to do this because it’s the right thing to do instead of weighing the potential political consequences.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Loading ...