Home
In this issue
Nov. 25, 2009
Daniel Pipes: Islamism 2.0
JWisdom.com: No God … No You! Know God, Know You! with Rabbi Yitzchok Fingerer (8 minutes)
Nov. 24, 2009
Rabbi Avi Shafran : The Atheists' unintended gift
JWisdom.com: You are a Philanthropist with Aliza Bulow (5 minutes)
Nov. 23, 2009
JWisdom.com: Actually, it really is all about you with Rabbi Lawrence Hajioff
Nov. 20, 2009
Rabbi David Aaron: How to make every second of your life come first
Caroline B. Glick: Whither American Jewry
Nov. 19, 2009
Binyamin L. Jolkovsky: Please Listen to this Godcast (5 minutes)
Jonathan Tobin: ADL Crosses the Line with Report Bashing Obama Critics
Nov. 18, 2009
Rabbi Yonason Goldson: What Judaism has to say about the secret of the Mona Lisa's smile
JWisdom.com: The (Jewish) Dating Game with Rabbi Lawrence Hajioff (8 minutes)
Nov. 17, 2009
Steven Emerson: How Does the 4th Amendment Impact Terror Finance Investigations?
JWisdom.com: If Frank Sinatra married Edith Piaf with Rabbi Y.Y. Rubinstein (2 minutes) Life lessons from what would be regarded as the most inappropriate lyrics ever sung
Nov. 16, 2009
The Jewish Ethicist by Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir : When borrowing is stealing
JWisdom.com: Deconstructing faith with Rabbi Warren Goldstein (9 minutes)
Nov. 13, 2009
JWisdom.com Sarah's subjective reality with Rabbi Sroy Levitansky ( 6 minutes)
Caroline B. Glick: Obama's failure, Netanyahu's opportunity
Nov. 12, 2009
The Kosher Gourmet By Marialisa Calta : A sweet sweet potato treat
JWisdom.com Does God get tired? with Rabbi Harvey Belovski ( 5 minutes)
Nov. 11, 2009
Rabbi Avi Shafran: Jews and money: When anti-Semitism isn't
JWisdom.com Marriages are not made in Heaven with Rabbi Lawrence Hajioff (VERY fast 15 minutes)
Nov. 10, 2009
Michael Doyle: Author of book exposing CAIR ordered to remove supporting documents from Web
JWisdom.com If the creation so loudly shouts the existence of the Creator, why aren't more people believers? with Rabbi Naftali Brawer (9 minutes)
Oct. 29, 2003
Mortimer B. Zuckerman: Graffiti On History's Walls (MUST-READ!)

Jewish World Review March 19, 2008 / 12 Adar II 5768

Obama's damage control speech didn't pander; does it explain?

By Roger Simon


Printer Friendly Version

Email this article

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Is it possible to win the Democratic nomination in such a way as to make winning not worth it?


The Barack Obama campaign thinks so. It thinks Hillary Clinton's campaign is willing to take any road to the White House, including the low road.


"They would do anything to win, and that means anything," David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, told me Monday. "There is a frenetic energy around them to commandeer this election in any way they can."


Axelrod went on: "She is the ultimate Washington inside player. She is always asking, 'How do we wire the vote? How do we wire the system to get the results we want?'"


From his point of view, the Clinton campaign keeps trying to change the rules.


"When they started off, it was all about delegates," Axelrod said. "Now that we have more delegates, it's all about the popular vote. And if that does not work out, they will probably challenge us to a game of cribbage to choose the nominee."


Another Obama senior aide told me he believed Clinton was willing to "destroy the party" just as long as she ends up with the nomination.


I asked Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson for a response.


"I think these apocalyptic quotes are unhelpful," Wolfson said. "I don't envision that either side would destroy the party. There is a democratic process here to play out. This process is not over. There are still 10 [contests] left to vote. What is the fear here? Let's let democracy run its course."


From the perspective of the Clinton campaign, it has little choice but to go all-out. As a top Clinton aide admitted to me: "Under our projections, if you sat both the Michigan and Florida delegations as they now exist and based on our projections for the remaining contests, Sen. Clinton would still trail narrowly on pledged delegates going into the convention."


Which means that Clinton almost certainly cannot get to the Denver convention with a lead in pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. She also cannot win a majority of states, even if she wins every remaining contest.


It is still possible for her to pull ahead of Obama in the popular vote if she does very well in the remaining contests.


But who says the popular vote counts in choosing a nominee? Those are not the party rules, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pointed out on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday.


"It's a delegate race," Pelosi said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."


The Obama campaign knows the Clinton campaign has no intention of accepting that.


And the Clinton campaign has already sold — with mild success — the notion that the leader in the popular vote has some claim to the nomination.


If Clinton manages to get a popular vote lead, she will use that to persuade party insiders — the 794 so-called superdelegates — to give her the nomination. A front-page story in The New York Times on Sunday quoted two undecided superdelegates as saying the popular vote will be something they consider in deciding for whom to vote.


And Wolfson made clear to me that what the Obama campaign considers "commandeering," the Clinton campaign sees as a legitimate path to victory.


"I think the automatic [i.e., super] delegates are going to make their assessment on a number of different criteria," Wolfson said. "The overall delegate count, the popular vote, momentum, states won by each candidate [not just the number, but the size], the coalitions of each candidate, who matches up best with John McCain, and who would be the best president."


The Obama campaign says it is willing to compete on every front, but it views the Clinton strategy as one of desperation.


"They are throwing long," Axelrod told me. "They are running up whatever roadblocks they can. She has her sight set on this nomination as a personal goal, and she has been tenacious — as we would expect — in pursuit of that goal."


But, Axelrod believes, there can be a downside to such tenacity.


"This is an election in which, fundamentally, people want change and being the consummate Washington inside player doesn't convince people that this is change we need," he said. "I don't think our voters' attitude is that we should win at all costs and through all means. I don't think that is what our folks believe."


Which is a very high-road way of looking at things. But does the high road always lead to the White House?

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.


Comment on Roger Simon's column by clicking here.


Roger Simon Archives


© 2008, Creators Syndicate