Clinton campaign should focus on winning, not changing the rules

[Pirate Smile]

Clinton campaign should focus on winning, not changing the rules
By Sam Graham-Felsen - Feb 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm EST

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe:

The Clinton campaign just said they have two options for trying to win the nomination -- attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters or change the rules they agreed to at the eleventh hour in order to seat non-existent delegates from Florida and Michigan. The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections, not these say or do anything to win tactics that could undermine Democrats’ ability to win the general election.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGgjRz

A New Clinton Electability Argument

I'm on a conference call with Clinton operative Harold Ickes, in which he's floating a new-ish argument about why Hillary would be the stronger Democratic noimnee (this was in the context of the decision facing superdelegates): Hillary has won key general-election swing states like Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and Arkansas, while Obama's won a lot of states Democrats will have zero chance of carrying in November, like Nebraska, Kansas, and Idaho.

Hmmm. If we're now talking about potential general-election swing states, it seems pretty clear that Obama's won as many as, if not more than, Hillary: Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri all come to mind. Moreover, with the exception of Missouri, Obama's winning these states by large--in many cases overwhelming--margins. Finally, does anyone really think Arizona's going to be a swing state in a race involving John McCain? This seems hard to believe.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/16/a-new-clinton-electability-argument.aspx

[MarjorieG]

1. Contests were close and vote problematic

Which is also my fear for the general. Many states have totals we don't agree with, a variety of problems with the technology, other results we can't ever know. Many more have registration problems, following switch, purging to electronics, of databases. LA won't count 94,000 of a ballot design problem, and many more. So at a time when Obama was catching on and making it close, the Clintons pretend it's a clear win.

We don't have adequate procedures and laws to start audits before or after election totals announced.

Now we have Clinton endorser, Ed Rendell, PA governor, announcing race more a problem. More Clinton sleaze.

I'm also worried about her negative ads, and that her new populism won't be questioned.