creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Roger Simon
Roger Simon
10 Feb 2012
Mitt Romney Is Dazed and Confused

You never want to let them see how much it hurts. You get hit by a pitch, you don't rub the spot. You get … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Newt Driven by “Personal Hatred”

Some men grow in office, and others just swell. Sam Rayburn said it, and Newt Gingrich proves it. During his … Read More.

3 Feb 2012
A Low Road Through a Weak Field

The road is low, the field is weak, and the future is bleak. Just three things to consider after yet another primary. 1.… Read More.

Obama Camp: HRC Is Taking the Low Road

Share Comment

Is it possible to win the Democratic nomination in such a way as to make winning not worth it?

The Barack Obama campaign thinks so. It thinks Hillary Clinton's campaign is willing to take any road to the White House, including the low road.

"They would do anything to win, and that means anything," David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, told me recently. "There is a frenetic energy around them to commandeer this election in any way they can."

Axelrod went on: "She is the ultimate Washington inside player. She is always asking: 'How do we wire the vote? How do we wire the system to get the results we want?'"

From his point of view, the Clinton campaign keeps trying to change the rules.

"When they started off, it was all about delegates," Axelrod said. "Now that we have more delegates, it's all about the popular vote. And if that does not work out, they will probably challenge us to a game of cribbage to choose the nominee."

Another Obama senior aide told me he believed Clinton was willing to "destroy the party" just as long as she ends up with the nomination.

I asked Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson for a response.

"I think these apocalyptic quotes are unhelpful," Wolfson said. "I don't envision that either side would destroy the party. There is a democratic process here to play out. This process is not over. There are still 10 (contests) left to vote. What is the fear here? Let's let democracy run its course."

From the perspective of the Clinton campaign, it has little choice but to go all-out. As a top Clinton aide admitted to me: "Under our projections, if you sat both the Michigan and Florida delegations as they now exist and based on our projections for the remaining contests, Sen. Clinton would still trail narrowly on pledged delegates going into the convention."

Which means that Clinton almost certainly cannot get to the Denver convention with a lead in pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. She also cannot win a majority of states, even if she wins every remaining contest.

It is still possible for her to pull ahead of Obama in the popular vote if she does very well in the remaining contests.

But who says the popular vote counts in choosing a nominee? Those are not the party rules, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pointed out on ABC's "This Week" recently.

"It's a delegate race," Pelosi said.

"The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

The Obama campaign knows the Clinton campaign has no intention of accepting that.

And the Clinton campaign has already sold — with mild success — the notion that the leader in the popular vote has some claim to the nomination.

If Clinton manages to get a popular vote lead, she will use that to persuade party insiders — the 794 so-called super-delegates — to give her the nomination. A front-page story in The New York Times quoted two undecided super-delegates as saying the popular vote will be something they consider in deciding for whom to vote.

And Wolfson made clear to me that what the Obama campaign considers "commandeering," the Clinton campaign sees as a legitimate path to victory.

"I think the automatic (i.e., super) delegates are going to make their assessment on a number of different criteria," Wolfson said. "The overall delegate count, the popular vote, momentum, states won by each candidate (not just the number, but the size), the coalitions of each candidate, who matches up best with John McCain and who would be the best president."

The Obama campaign says it is willing to compete on every front, but it views the Clinton strategy as one of desperation.

"They are throwing long," Axelrod told me. "They are running up whatever roadblocks they can. She has her sight set on this nomination as a personal goal, and she has been tenacious — as we would expect — in pursuit of that goal."

But, Axelrod believes, there can be a downside to such tenacity.

"This is an election in which, fundamentally, people want change, and being the consummate Washington inside player doesn't convince people that this is change we need," he said. "I don't think our voters' attitude is that we should win at all costs and through all means. I don't think that is what our folks believe."

Which is a very high-road way of looking at things. But does the high road always lead to the White House?

To find out more about Roger Simon, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008, CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
The claims of moral superiority by the Obama campaign are just part of their campaign strategy, an important part and perhaps a winning strategy. Why is it morally superior for Sen. Obama to claim that Sen. Clinton has fabricated her foreign policy experience compared to her pointing out his lack of experience? As for "moving the ball," there has been plenty of that in the Obama campaign. At first super delegates were obligated to vote as their constituents voted, but that didn't work for Kennedy or Kerry, so now that has evolved into super delegates are obligated to abide by NATIONAL primary votes. Richardson got himself into an embarrassing bind on the Today Show on Monday when Matt Lauer read what Richardson told the NY Times about voting according to his constituents. Richardson said Clinton's win in New Mexico was very narrow and, after all he is a western Governor and Obama has won in the west. Poor guy apparently hasn't noticed that Clinton won in California, Arizona, and Nevada. That IS the west, you self-serving jerk! The press is determined to install Obama as the Democratic candidate. Unfortunately they won't be able to protect him during the general election when the 527's won't be dependent upon the press to deliver their attacks.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Yellow Dog
Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:32 PM
Question, when a person run for President of the United States, why do we as a nation do back ground checks?
We do not know much about Obama and just wheir is the press? The talk Obama gave after the video came out
on Rev Wright in the church that Obama has been for 20 years. I did not hear a thing just why he went to the
church other than they did good work with poor people. So many churchs do many services for poor people. So
that was not it.
Do not believe that citizens can not follow someone that we know the full back ground on him. When Richardson
just said he heard the talk and went with Obama, what is Richardson thinking.
Yes Obama can speak well and sounds great, however need a whole lot more. It is almost like the followers of
Jack Kennedy years ago, but the press would not do anything in way of telling us about him either. Why do we become like fools, and in todays world we need more information about this guy who wants to be President.
Comment: #2
Posted by: j codd
Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:40 AM
FRANKLY, I HOPE THAT POLITICIANS LEARN A LESSON THE CLINTON MESS.. FROM DAY ONE, PEOPLE WITH THE RIGHT MINDSET WERE WARNING THAT HILARIOUS HILLARY WAS TOO NASTY, A BAD ACTOR AND JUST PLAIN UNELECTABLE. WELL, WE NOW KNOW THE TRUTH. REMOVE THE SINGLE MINDED WOMEN'S VOTE AND WHAT ARE YOU BASICALLY LEFT WITH??
FACT IS BILL CLINTON MADE A DEAL AFTER HIS SCREWING AROJND -- SHE WOULD STICK WITH HIM BUT THE COST WAS HIS FULL BACKING FPR HER RUN AS FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT.... HE GOT OFF THE HOOK AND WE ARE AGAIN PAYING FOR HIS MISTAKES.
THE LESSON AFTER THE CLINTON FIASCO IS OVER IS NEVER AGAIN RUN YOUR WIFE OR GIRL FRIEND AS ANYTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN DOG CATCHER. ... THE TROUBLE ALL ALONG IS THAT PEOPLE COULD NOT FREELY CRITITIZE THAT xxxxc FOR BEING A xxxxxx.. WHY? RESPECT OR WHAT WAS LEFT FOR BILL CLINTON... IT WAS IN SOME WAYS LIKE PUTTING THE BOSS'S DAUGHTER OR WIFE IN A HIGH POSITION WITHOUT HER HAVING ANY REAL EXPERIENCE.. HILLARY'S EXPEWRIENCE AS FIRST LADY MERELY AMOUNTED TO TAKING YOUR DAUGHTER TO WORK.. SHE NEVER HAD THE SECURITY CLEARING NEEDED TO TAKE PART ON ANY KEY DISCUSSIONS.
Comment: #3
Posted by: PIERRE BELEC
Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:24 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Roger Simon
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 19 Feb 2012

14 Jan 2009 Once Again, the Race Card Trumps the Gender Card

25 Mar 2009 The Wolves of Wall Street

30 Jul 2010 The 'Watch Me Generation' Should Watch Out