Sorting through the aftermath of the Dems big smash-up yesterday leads to this couple of graphs from the Washington Post story by Dan Balz and Jon Cohen:
Obama, speaking in San Antonio before Texas was counted, congratulated Clinton on her victories in Ohio and Rhode Island, something she had never done during his winning streak, but he said her successes would not stop his march toward the nomination.
"We know this," he said. "No matter what happens tonight, we have nearly the same delegate lead as we had this morning, and we are on our way to winning this nomination."
(Emphasis added.)
Note the WaPo's tiny editorial comment there --a shot at Hillary completely unnecessary to the narrative but useful in conveying not only another example of Obama bias in the MSM, but also a telling detail about Clinton, Inc's brand of politics.
The MSM will continue to try and keep Obama's momentum alive and Team Clinton will follow that old adage: Whatever is rewarded is repeated.
Hillary was rewarded by throwing anvils at the young and lightly credentialed Illinois senator, and by drawing attention to the Rezko trial. Expect more anvils and more arrows pointing towards the federal courthouse in Chicago.
But even with a big assist by Governor Ed Rendell in Pennsylvania and six weeks of brass knuckled infighting, Obama's summary is correct --he's got the lead, and it is hard to see how, absent incredible perfidy among the super delegates and especially without chicanery with the outlawed Florida and Michigan delegations, Hillary can get the nod. The CBS News Democratic delegate count stands at Obama 1,512; Clinton, 1,423. ABC puts it at 1,555 and 1,449. Not enough time or delegates to beat Obama fairly. (HT: Allen.)
She'll have to cheat to win. Period.
Only Hillary was on the Dem ballot in Michigan. Obama played by the rules. If he was wrongly head-faked into not competing in a state where a huge African-American population in Detroit could have easily delivered the state for him and then has to watch the seating of Hillary's winning margin, expect the divide in the Democratic Party to grow enormously wide. (Could Obama even accept a vice-presidential nomination after that --a new Al Gore, destined to live in confinement for eight years until the Clintons undercut his eventual candidacy as they did Gore's in 2000?)
Politico's Mike Allen points to a summary of what's ahead as Team Clinton prepares to cut America's first African-American near-nominee down to size and then into pieces:
Team Clinton's Harold Ickes and Mark Penn write reporters in a memo this morning: "With last night's victories in Ohio and Texas, one thing is clear: the momentum has swung back to Hillary Clinton. … The vetting of Obama has just begun. … If the primary contest ends prematurely and Obama is the nominee, Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy."
What's "the community" going to think of this digit-by-digit deconstruction of the charismatic adopted son of the South Side? They were expecting it from the Republicans, but from establishment Democrats?
It is finally their turn, but they have to watch 50 days of attacks on Obama simply because the Clintons want another eight years of power?
The Democrats are now dancing on a cliff unlike any they have been on since 1968 when the demands for new voices and change ran straight into the entrenched interests of unions and special interest groups that have long made common cause with the D.C. Dems.
The Dems shattered 40 years ago. The sequel may be even more destructive of the left.
|