Obama Battles Back
A big win. A squeaker loss. The leader tightens his grip.
Decision Tuesday: Indiana
Barack Obama's favorite new subject is mathematics. And after his impressive performance Tuesday night—with a blowout win over Hillary Clinton in North Carolina and a squeaker of a loss in Indiana—Obama may have mastered the calculations needed to finally triumph in the Democratic race.
Speaking to his supporters in Raleigh, Obama was magnanimous in victory, congratulating Clinton on what seemed an apparent win in Indiana early in the evening even before most networks had called the state and lauding her as a "formidable" candidate. But then he reminded her of the impossible arithmetic she faces. With the Illinois senator's 14-point win in North Carolina, he has now all but ensured that Clinton cannot catch him in pledged delegates in the six remaining primary races, even if the disputed Florida and Michigan results are thrown in. That increases the likelihood that within a matter of days or weeks, the 250 or so undecided superdelegates who have been waiting for one of the two Democratic candidates to reach an insurmountable majority will begin breaking his way. "Tonight we stand less than 200 delegates away from securing the nomination," he said to cheers in North Carolina.
Shortly before Obama spoke, communications director Robert Gibbs and chief strategist David Axelrod gathered a small group of reporters on a terrace overlooking the parking lot and did what they did best: spin. As they see it, each contest that doesn't slash Obama's insurmountable lead in the pledged-delegate count or his near-insurmountable edge in the popular vote—or expands his leads, as Tuesday night's results probably will—puts them, in Gibbs's words, one step "closer to the finish line." For Obama, he implied, the less the game changes, the better.
Asked whether he thought the race was over, Axelrod avoided answering—but made it clear that he's not exactly perched on the edge of his seat. "The math is the math," he said. Gibbs chimed in: "The fact is, there are fewer delegates left to win in the primaries than superdelegates still up for grabs," he said. "From this point on, Sen. Clinton would have to win 70 percent of all the remaining delegates, both superdelegates and pledged delegates, to reach a majority. And as far as superdelegates go, just looked at what we've rolled out since Feb. 5. That's a tall order."
Indeed. Over at Clinton headquarters in Indianapolis, as the returns rolled into the Murat Centre, a crowd of supporters chanted "Madame President!" while Hillary's essential anthem played in the background: the Journey song "Don't Stop Believing." Hillary, by all appearances, has never stopped. But with her disappointing split decision, the woman who had been confidently comparing herself to a never-say-die fighter in recent weeks is sounding desperate once again. True, in her victory speech, Clinton brazenly declared that "it's full speed onto the White House." But she also pleaded for more funds against "a candidate who spends massively."
And now, even more than money, Hillary badly needs a new campaign narrative, a new way to persuade undecided superdelegates to back her. Utterly gone with the wind—blown somewhere off the coast of North Carolina—was the hopeful Clinton scenario heard in recent weeks. This was the idea put forward by the Hillary camp that Obama was fatally damaged by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy and other campaign mishaps: that he had become all but unelectable against John McCain.
Obama's decisive win Tuesday in North Carolina—all the sweeter for his supporters coming after Bill Clinton campaigned doggedly in small N.C. towns—destroyed that Clinton conceit. Despite exit polling that suggested Obama had been seriously damaged by the unpopular remarks of his former pastor—even after his sharp remarks last week distancing himself from Wright—the Illinois senator appears to have contained the crisis and resumed his march to the nomination.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »


Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: griffin1 @ 05/14/2008 5:12:23 PM
Comment: To all you Hillary supporters let me say one thing, I am a democrat first and I supported Barack Obama because of his message for change and I felt deeply that we needed someone without all the political ties and dirty politics that is going on behind close doors. Behind these doors no one is fighting for us Americans who is going through foreclosure or can't pay there gas bills and pay for medication. It just so happen that Obama is in the lead and this is fair game if Hillary was to beat out Obama I would stand behind her and support her candiacy before I would ever put my vote behind John McCain, we should be smarter about the decisions we make as democrats, If Hillary wins the nomination Obama will campaign for her as well, If Obama wins Hillary has said time and time again she will support him. To be a democrat and switch to McCain over Barack that is total nonsense especially if you think we can take another 8 years of this administration.. GIVE ME A BREAK PLEASE - THIS IS COMMON SENSE
Posted By: Illinois Voter @ 05/13/2008 12:27:52 AM
Comment: WASHINGTON, February 13, 2008 -- Accuracy in Media editor
Cliff
Kincaid disclosed today that a hugely expensive bill called the
"Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic Senator Barack Obama,
was quickly passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
Wednesday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the
United States. Kincaid said that the major media's cover-up of the
bill, which makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to
the dictates of the United Nations, demonstrates the media's desire
to see Senator Obama elected to the presidency.
In a column posted on the AIM web site, Kincaid noted that Senator
Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was
trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S. 2433) through his
committee without hearings. The legislation would commit the U.S. to
spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which
amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above
what the U.S. already spends. It was scheduled for a Thursday vote
but was moved up a day, to Wednesday, and rushed through by voice
vote. Kincaid learned, however, that conservative Senators have now
put a "hold" on the legislation, in order to prevent it from being
rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote.
The House version (H.R. 1302) was suddenly brought up on the House
floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House
Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure
committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.
Kincaid's column notes that the official in charge of making nations
comply with the U.N. Millennium Goals, which are prominently
highlighted in the Obama bill, says a global tax will be necessary
to force American taxpayers to provide the money.
Enough reason for me not to vote for him!!!!!!!!!
Posted By: powin @ 05/12/2008 7:48:00 PM
Comment: Alvy,
"[You're] the pompous ass," my friend, and "stupid" is burned into your barking like the b you've shown yourself to be in all of your rebuttals (when you're not stroking your ego, that is). Stop your wimpish paranoia and, if you can comprehend anyone outside of yourself, know this: your blogging IS in a political arena, i.e. Newsweek. I can't believe how f*ing retarded you can be. All points made clear in this post to you and your twisted buddy, I knew I'd find you somewhere.