Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Democratic Superdelegates

It's now very clear that Clinton Obama is likely to go to a convention for decision, perhaps making superdelegate voting the key to the nomination. CNN reported this morning that without *huge* winning margins for one candidate, neither can clinch this nomination without superdelegate votes.

So, how will this shake out? I'm guessing most of the superdelegates are waiting to jump on board with the winner of the popular voting, which may be just as well. If the "popular" nomination is overturned by insiders many will be angry, though I continue to think the most likely scenario is Clinton/Obama, a combination that may be dictated at the party level during the convention.


McCain has all but sewn up the nomination, even before his impressive win in Virginia that should prove Mike Huckabee is simply not viable as any threat to the McCain Campaign. In fact the best strategy for Huckabee now is to suck up to McCain in the hopes of a VP nomination that is less likely to be forthcoming if he simply gums up the works and makes McCain look bad. That said, he's clearly hoping to have some leverage at the convention with enough delegates to be able to secure a VP spot. This appears less likely after yesterday's loss in Virginia.

What about Ron Paul? Arguably the most passionate and articulate spokesperson of the values Republicans claim to hold dear remains in the race, but with too little support to make much of a difference. His internet popularity was very interesting but failed to turn his campaign into the powerful force that Huckabee's became. I think Paul actually had more money initially than Huckabee and may still be pulling in more donations.

You call that negative?

The term "negative campaigning" should be reserved to mean the nasty, mean spirited, or misleading stuff that has become so common in American politics. Here, CNN calls a Hilary Clinton Wisonsin campaign commercial "negative" when all it does is goad Obama for refusing a debate, which he has done because stratically it is wise for him to do so and for Clinton, generally a better debater, to try to bring on more debates. This is not exactly the type of thing we saw back in the elections of the 1800s where candidates took outrageous shots at their opponents.

We can have a spirited, healthy interactions free from the media-induced nonsense that tends to color everything in the most confrontational light.