Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The Argument for Sen. Clinton

In The Philadelphia Inquirer recently, Jonathan V. Last makes the argument about who can go the distance.
Barack Obama's electoral flaws manifested themselves this week as he lost primaries in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island. If you've been reading this column and paying close attention to the voting coalitions of Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, this came as no surprise. By now, others have told you how "unstoppable" Obama is enough times that you should know better.[...]

Obama's argument will be as follows: He garnered more pledged delegates and he does better in prospective polling matchups against John McCain.[...]

Clinton's case is more complicated - but I think it has a better chance of working. She can argue that Obama's lead stands up only if you exclude the results of Michigan and Florida. These two states were stripped of their delegates by the national party after naughty state party officials decided to move the primaries up on the calendar. Clinton and Obama both promised not to campaign in either state. Clinton won both primaries handily.[...]

Clinton has at least even odds at being the nominee. And she would probably be the stronger candidate for the Democrats.

No comments: