A victim not of sexism, but of a mad hatter nomination process. Here is something from a note from Ms. Clinton to all the superdelegates, courtesy of RealClearPolitics:
Recent polls and election results show a clear trend: I am ahead in states that have been critical to victory in the past two elections. From Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to West Virginia and beyond, the results of recent primaries in battleground states show that I have strong support from the regions and demographics Democrats need to take back the White House. I am also currently ahead of Senator McCain in Gallup national tracking polls, while Senator Obama is behind him. And nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio. I've enclosed a detailed analysis of recent electoral and polling information, and I hope you will take some time to review it carefully.
In addition, when the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries. Ultimately, the point of our primary process is to pick our strongest nominee - the one who would be the best President and Commander in Chief, who has the greatest support from members of our party, and who is most likely to win in November. So I hope you will consider not just the strength of the coalition backing me, but also that more people will have cast their votes for me [my emphasis].
That is Ms. Clinton's case for the nomination. Senator Clinton surely has a point. Under a more rational nomination process, she would be the nominee. Byron York makes this case in USA Today:
In the Texas primary on March 4, Clinton won by a margin of 100,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. For that victory, Clinton was awarded 65 delegates, while Obama got 61. Then, on election night, according to the Texas Democratic Party, nearly 1 million Democrats — many of whom had already voted in that day's primary — gathered in party caucuses. We don't know how many came down on either side, but we know that more came out for Obama than for Clinton. For that, Obama was awarded 38 delegates to Clinton's 29.
Put them together, and Obama left Texas with 99 delegates to Clinton's 94 — even though Clinton handily won the contest in which votes were actually counted.
In Idaho, about 21,000 Democrats gathered for caucuses. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes. For that, he won 15 delegates to three for Clinton — a net gain of 12 delegates.
In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama's 48 — a net gain of 11 delegates.
There must be some universe in which this system makes sense, but it isn't this universe. Of course none of this will matter if Obama wins in November. But what if he doesn't? Senator Clinton looks like she believes she still has a chance, but I have been arguing that she is really working on Plan B. Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post agrees with me:
Facing almost impossible odds in her quest to become the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton has started to cast the presidential race as a historical anomaly in which she is being badly mistreated.
In doing so, Clinton and her husband seem to be laying the groundwork -- whether unconsciously or consciously -- to go back to Democratic voters if Barack Obama comes up short in November with a very concise message: "Told you so."
Senator Clinton doesn't have to decide whether she has any chance this year, because her strategy is the same either way. But she does have a point when she presents herself as a victim. She is a victim of a party that cannot decide what it is trying to do.
Recent Comments