Signals
Today, the governor of Kansas, the honorable Kathleen Sebelius, endorsed Barack Obama for President. Sebelius is a Democratic governor in a Red State, a Super-Tuesday state.
Last night, Governor Sebelius gave the Democratic Response to the President's last State of the Union address.
Not being in the front office of the Party, I am not sure how the Party picks those who give the Democratic response to the State of the Union. I imagine, however, that Howard Dean or someone pondered the political implications of that prime-time gig, in a hotly contested election, with a floundering GOP incumbent, a Democratic Congress and the winds at the party's back, especially if McCain, disdained by much of his party, or Romney are the opponents. I imagine that someone somewhere wondered just who and how to maximize the political effect of the speech, its content and the politician to deliver it.
Someone, somewhere invited a low-profile governor of a midwestern state with a small population, few delegates and very little name recognition to step into the prime time.
Today, that same governor endorses Obama in her home state. Her forthcoming endorsement was not a mystery, and I reckon the timing is not a coincidence.
Might HRC be feeling a little isolated?
Might the party leadership be betting on a new inevitable candidate?
Might we get a woman in the West Wing after all? (Apparently, I'm just not in the loop, and maybe she's not so low-profile.)
Might endorsements and party signals start to reshuffle the superdelegate commitments?
Last night, Governor Sebelius gave the Democratic Response to the President's last State of the Union address.
Not being in the front office of the Party, I am not sure how the Party picks those who give the Democratic response to the State of the Union. I imagine, however, that Howard Dean or someone pondered the political implications of that prime-time gig, in a hotly contested election, with a floundering GOP incumbent, a Democratic Congress and the winds at the party's back, especially if McCain, disdained by much of his party, or Romney are the opponents. I imagine that someone somewhere wondered just who and how to maximize the political effect of the speech, its content and the politician to deliver it.
Someone, somewhere invited a low-profile governor of a midwestern state with a small population, few delegates and very little name recognition to step into the prime time.
Today, that same governor endorses Obama in her home state. Her forthcoming endorsement was not a mystery, and I reckon the timing is not a coincidence.
Might HRC be feeling a little isolated?
Might the party leadership be betting on a new inevitable candidate?
Might we get a woman in the West Wing after all? (Apparently, I'm just not in the loop, and maybe she's not so low-profile.)
Might endorsements and party signals start to reshuffle the superdelegate commitments?
posted by JRB at 9:20 PM
8 Comments:
Sebelius is a fast-riser in the Dem party so I'm not surprised that she was given the response (kinda like when Obarama was given the big slot at the DNC in '04).
I think that the only way that Obama wins is if a) Edwards endorses him and really encourages his supporters/delegates to support him) and b) the super delegates deviate from the historical pattern of splitting along popular vote lines of their states.
The first is quite possible but the second is much less likely.
I still say that this all ends up with a Hillary/Obama "super" ticket. Some continue to howl that Obama would never agree to that but that doesn't make sense when you consider the obvious question: where could he affect history more--as the junior senator of Illinois or as the first black VP nominee in U.S. history (plus, he wouldn't have to give up his seat to do so).
Those are not the only way Obama wins.
Remember that the Dem primaries all are proportional, and HRC is not winning, not in raw number, not in percentages and not in delegates.
Superdelegates are fungible, and less than a fifth have declared, and all of the declarations are subject to change.
Next week will not decide the race, but if Obama ends Super Tuesday with more delegates than HRC and if he ends with a higher percentage in more states, he wins. California will split, north v. south, unless the Kennedys and Ms. Shriver turn out in SoCal, then HRC is in real trouble. New York is going to split, and if Obama wins the city (and he may), HRC loses her lynchpin.
I predict Edwards will endorse Obama before Tuesday. Edwards will not in any event endorse HRC. His other option is to remain mum.
Look for Al Gore to endorse Obama before the end of the week or on Saturday morning.
If Edwards and Gore endorse Obama, the superdelegates are a done deal for Obama.
HRC is losing and will lose. Obama would not take 2d chair, because he would be the heir apparent without the Clinton taint. Do recall how the Clinton's treated their last VP successor: not well.
Notice something else, in addition to the Sebelius signal, the MSM has treated HRC's "victory" in Florida much differently than her parallel "victory" in Michigan. After MI, the press reported a Romney and HRC win, double headlines, even though she was running against no one. Last night and today, the press is reporting that HRC won nothing and is very, very clear that it was an empty gesture. The press senses the winds changing, and the nuance in the headlines demonstrates momentum.
Last point, if McCain wins the GOP (and he should lock it up next week), and if the Dems still are in contest, then Obama will have even more wind at his back. With anyone else, the Dems would take their chances with the field, but against McCain contrast and history will be extra-important. HRC and JM are indistinguishable, especially generationally.
Chad:
More to my last point:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/surprisingly_liberal.php
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/thats_more_like_it.php.
(I can't hyperlink very well without very simple buttons to push.)
Well, it really all comes down to California next Tuesday.
If Obama wins the state, he could win the Dem. nomination.
If he does not win the state then there's really no way for him to make the delegate numbers work.
I personally doubt he can pull it off (though an assist from Edwards would help).
Ultimately, if he does not win the nomination this time, I suspect that he will have learned a very important lesson: inspiring rhetoric must be coupled with equally inspiring policy details.
In this race, Obama has offered some interesting policy "concepts" but his "details" have seemed lighter than Edwards especially and Clinton, too.
It's the ole' form and substance dichotomy.
Once again, I beg to differ. Obama does not need to "win" California, as if there were such a thing, because it's proportional. He may lose the popular vote by losing Los Angeles County, but if he's within 7% across the state, picks up SF and the Central Valley and other rural areas, they tie in delegates.
See my friend JAW at the Malibu Librarian link for more.
He's got plenty of details, on the website; he just doesn't give many wonky speeches, especially televised speeches just prior to and just after primary days, because no one does.
Keep your eyes on the ball, because things are going to happen quickly this week:
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/01302008/postopinion/editorials/post_endorses_barack_obama_813218.htm.
Obama has won every campaign he's ever entered with a late surge that defies polls, from the state senate through to the South Carolina primary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff,
I appreciate when people vigorously support their candidate but, if Obama does not win the popular vote in California, then almost any politico will agree that the gig is up.
Ultimately, these things come down to math and HRC has most of the math on her side.
Sure, "Black Swans" like brokered conventions can pop up (the latest and greatest is that such a convention would call upon Al Gore to step forward and serve).
But, that's like betting against Vegas--winning just enough to feel like you're in the game, but never really in control.
California. New York. New Jersey.
Win these, you win. Don't, you lose.
Simple math for Dems this year.
p.s. Hmm...very little talk about Texas despite its large number of delegates--and very large number of Hispanic Dems. Its what one experienced politico told me was HRC's fail-safe.
Post a Comment
<< Home