Table 1. Whether select bloggers are failing to recognize that there is nothing left to contest except Hillary's margin of defeat among elected delegates, by perpetuating a myth of a "tight race", "momentum", "a win", etc.
Yes="faking it"
No="telling the truth about the strategic imperative of the race"
Americablog:
Joe Sudbay: No. "Considering that most polls predict Obama should win North Carolina by a healthy margin and both campaigns think Indiana will be close, the chances of a Clinton victory are actually lower than ever."
MSNBC's First Read:
Chuck Todd: No but then Yes! After having declared the race for a winner among elected delegates over ("We can stop the delegate math"), he goes on with this fake question: "So which May 6 state is more important to Clinton -- Indiana or North Carolina?"
Montanero: No. He's going as far as debunking the popular vote, as well! "No wonder Clinton herself decided to start talking about Michigan again, because she can't "win" the popular vote without it. The problem: Even many Clinton supporters believe it’s not a valid measurement."
TIME, The Page
Halperin: Not clear - just offering voter demographics/affinities, mostly
RCP blogs: Leaning "No": "If this contest were still at the point where momentum, symbolism, and reading tea leaves mattered, Clinton would be in pretty good shape. Everything she has needed to happen is happening now. Obama is getting tougher press coverage and critical examination. He's also getting rattled a bit, and he didn't perform well in the recent debate in Philadelphia. Clinton is winning in big, important places, but it's happening about three months too late. ..At the end of the day, the popular vote for the Democratic nomination means nothing."
Swampland: Neither here nor there - nocommittal reportage
Obama Campaign
Obama Himself: Yes [ha!], even he's participating in the charade that there is more to contest other than the size of Hillary's defeat: ""The way we're gonna close the deal is by winning. And right now we're winning," he said. "And you know what we'll do is keep on campaigning in Indiana and North Carolina and Oregon and these other states. And at the conclusion of all these contests, people will go back and take a look and say, 'Who's won?'"" Wow. Just wow.
The American Prospect:
Ezra Klein: No. "Agreed. I've yet to hear a plausible scenario in which Clinton wins the superdelegates. Just about every serious path to the presidency requires Obama to utterly implode, to be rendered non-competitive for the nomination."
The Atlantic
Andrew Sullivan: No. Quoting Daniel Henniger, "No matter how many kicks the rest of us find in such famously fun primary states as Indiana and South Dakota, it's going to be McCain versus Obama in 2008. I believe the cement set around the Clinton coffin last Friday."
Ross Douthat: No. "What you don't want is what the Democrats have now: A dynamic in which the eventual winner - Obama, that is - pulled way ahead in the middle of the campaign, only to have the eventual loser mount a furious comeback that everyone outside her inner circle (and lots of people inside, one imagines) knows is more or less hopeless, ..."
MattY: unkown, focusing on voter affinities/demographics/voting blocks
MarcA: unkown, focusing on voter affinities/demographics, but "Sen. Hillary Clinton, in Washington for Senate business, is in intense discussions, right now [April 24th], with uncommitted superdelegates in a conference room at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Clinton held similar meetings last night [April 23rd]."
HuffingtonPost
Somewhat mixed, but leaning No.
"James Zogby, 04.23.2008 There is a bizarre, and even tragic, unreality to the continuing drama playing out in the Democratic primary. This election is being presented as close and not yet over."
Jim Creamer: "Last Night Clinton Won the Pennsylvania Primary, but Lost the War for the Nomination"
[more updates forthcoming ...]
The New York Times
Krugman. No, But. He's still holding on for a miracle or something, arguing that, instead of the key independent voters for whom Hillary's high negatives knock her out, folks ought to think about winning Hillary's key party demographics. I'd rather see the Party try to lead from its head and build a broad coalition, than from an appeal to everyone's belly, for a change, even though I like Paul a lot and think that Obama has a long, hard road still. Paul is just going to need some time to grieve, apparently.
Update1:
Chicago Tribune
The Swamp: Yes. Failing to provide context to the races in Indiana and N.C. being a contest for the margin of Hillary's defeat.
Independents
OpenLeft: Leaning Yes. "With Clinton + Edwards coming within four delegates of Obama, the possibility of a convention fight looms. In order to avoid fights at the credentials committee, rules committee, or floor of the convention, it is important for Obama to secure the as many of the 28 remaining uncommitted delegates from Michigan as possible, and to improve on the delegate projections for states and territories yet to hold nominating contests."
Atrios: unclear
FDL: unclear
Muckracker: Well deserved pass. Just have a LOOK at their fantastic writing about the unmasking of the Bush-Cheney torture regime.
[more updates forthcoming... hopefully something from the right-wing(s)]
Friday, April 25, 2008
SuperDay+2: Select Blogosphere Roundup
