Letter to the March 4th Primary Voters

[ChromeFoundry]

Dear Voters of Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont,
On March 4th you can go to the polls in your states and help determine who will be the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States. Assuming you are not an ardent Republican, you will want to vote in the Democratic contest, and you have two realistic choices in Illinois Senator Barack Obama and New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Let me offer you some advice in making your decision.

If you prefer Barack Obama, vote for him. But if you prefer Hillary Clinton, there are some things for you to think about. To make this clear, let's look at what will happen if Sen. Obama wins the March 4th contests. It will culminate a winning streak of fifteen primaries and caucuses that began on February 9th, when Obama swept the contests in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington state, and the Virgin Islands. The story will be clear...David beat Goliath with a strategy of competing in all 50 states, an optimistic message of hope and national unity, and an efficient and disciplined campaign staff. In doing so, he helped boost youth turnout to unprecedented levels, dominated in states and districts where Republicans have historically done well, attracted both independents and Republicans that we will need in the general election, and even brought higher income white voters into the tent. Our nominee will be a clear victor with tons of momentum...a media sensation.

But, if Obama does not win the March 4th contests things will not be so rosy. Here is how New York Times columnist Bob Herbert puts it:


The Clintons would declare themselves (yet again) the Comeback Kids, although they would still be behind in delegates. They would continue their push to have the Michigan and Florida delegations seated. They would step up their attacks on the Obama forces with understandable glee. And they would use whatever persuasive powers they could muster to push the idea with party regulars that Senator Obama is unelectable.
That is a scenario guaranteed to infuriate the Obama true-believers. If Senator Clinton managed to secure the nomination under those circumstances, it would open deep wounds in the party that would be very difficult to heal.

If you want Clinton to be the nominee, you might be willing to infuriate 'Obama true believers'. After all, Obama is not entitled to anything. The key problem is the 'manag to secure the nomination' part of this scenario. If you support Clinton you should still consider just how furious her nomination will make his supporters.

Simply put, Clinton cannot finish the nominating process with more pledged (elected) delegates. She cannot lay claim to winning more states, as Obama has already won half of them. Under realistic projections, she cannot win the popular vote. All she can do is narrow the lead that Obama has already built and then hope that the superdelegates (former and currently elected officials, and unelected officials at the Democratic National Committee) overturn the verdict of the voters. Unfortunately for Clinton, current trends in superdelegate endorsements do not augur well for her strategy. This is from two days ago:


With the pick up of Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) today, Obama has now reached 200 superdelegates. He has cut what was once a 90-delegate advantage for Clinton to what is now 56 since Super Tuesday, Feb. 5th. Since Feb. 5, Obama has gained 30 publicly declared superdelegates, and Clinton has lost a net of four.

Since that time, more superdelegates have moved into Obama's camp, including West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller. Obama now has a delegate lead (including superdelegates): Obama 1,402, Clinton 1,291. I point this out because it provides evidence that Clinton cannot prevail no matter what happens on March 4th. Unless there is some kind of unforeseen scandal or illness, Barack Obama has already won enough delegates and enough party establishment support to assure himself of the nomination.

Given that reality, a vote for Hillary Clinton is not just a vote of personal preference. You may feel strongly that Clinton would be a better president, and I can respect that opinion. But she most assuredly cannot be a more electable nominee. Not now. Not with what she would have to pull off to win the nomination. To win, she would have to somehow convince the party establishment that Barack Obama is unelectable. To do that, she would have to be unrelentingly negative, and for a long time.

Consider this: after you vote on March 4th, there will be a caucus in Wyoming on March 8th. Obama won neighboring Idaho 79%-17%, winning 15 of its 18 delegates. Obama won neighboring Nebraska 68%-32%, winning 16 of its 24 delegates. Obama won neighboring Colorado 67%-33% winning 33 of its 46 delegates. I think it is a fair bet that Obama will win the Wyoming caucus. And then there is a primary in Mississippi on March 10th. Obama won the contests in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. I think it is a fair bet that he will win the primary in Mississippi. So, even if Hillary pulls off an upset on March 4th, she is very unlikely to get any momentum out of it. Instead, she will lose the next two contests. And do you know what happens then? The whole nominating process comes to a screeching halt. There are no contents between Mississippi on March 10th and Pennsylvania on April 22nd.

What will it mean if Clinton does not drop out and continues to run against Obama for six whole weeks...with no realistic hope of winning the nomination unless she can destroy Obama's electability?

I guess, for the March 4th voter that is thinking of voting for Hillary Clinton, the question to ask is: "what do you hope to accomplish?"

I understand that many people are huge fans of Hillary Clinton, or are eager to cast their first ballot for a viable woman candidate for the presidency. But she isn't really viable anymore. And we really need to avoid a situation where our party is divided and our nominee is run-down as somehow inadequate for a six-week period before Pennsylvania.

Keep in mind that even if Clinton were to win Pennsylvania, nothing would change. A few delegates from there would change none of the fundamentals. So, if you are a March 4th voter that is thinking of voting for Hillary Clinton, please reconsider. The worst thing that could happen on March 4th is that Clinton does well enough to prevent her from dropping out.

Just something to consider.

Best regards,

BooMan

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/3/1/105557/2680

[babylonsister]

1. Rec'd! She doesn't care about infuriating Obama supporters, but

she shouldn't. What should concern her more is infuriating Obama supporters by her underhanded, dirty words and deeds.

I have a feeling today's going to be a long-g-g day. ;)

[OhioChick]

2. Good Read!

Thanks for posting.
K&R
:kick:

[LEW]

3. Great Points!

The republicans are trying to pretend they are united behind McCain, lets vote Obama today and really unite behind our candidate and march on to November!

[Craftsman]

4. She will never quit

I sense a floor fight coming.

[jaxx]

5. I think you may be right.

I was always a Hillary supporter, but when Obama threw his hat into the ring I knew he was my candidate. Living in IL we knew him before the 2004 convention speech, and I liked him from the start. Steady, informed, and always learning. Not a bighead who thinks he knows it all, but willing to listen.

Nothing is written in stone, any plan either of them have will be changed and added to before it comes to vote. It's the way of our system. Can he adjust.....I think so, without losing the focus of what is needed. Can she.....I am not confident in that.

The smears from the Clinton camp have been ugly. Muslim, drugs, and now McCain is better than Obama! I am no longer a Hillary supporter and would have to hold my nose if she would somehow pull this nomination out of the blurry edges. I hope I don't have to make that choice.

[fight4my3sons]

6. K&R