Posted on 05/07/2008 1:44:59 PM PDT by The_Republican
In a different, bygone era, Hillary Clinton's loss in North Carolina last night probably wouldn't have inspired the pundit class to pronounce her campaign finally and officially toast. After all, there's still no plausible way for Barack Obama to assemble the 2,025 delegates he needs to clinch the nomination without persuading at least a hundred or so of the famously uncommitted superdelegates to leap on board his bandwagon. And there's nothing in the Democratic Party's rules that promises the nomination to the candidate who's merely leading in the delegate count or the popular vote. If anything, it's the reverse: A system that requires the winner to marshal a supermajority of delegates rather than a mere majority, and that throws a slew of superdelegates into the mix, would seem to be designed to have close races decided at the convention, rather than by a whisker-thin majority in a voting system that, were it designed differently, might have Hillary in the lead instead.
Certainly, this is how things used to work. Nobody was surprised or appalled when Ronald Reagan tried to unseat Gerald Ford at the 1976 Republican Convention, or when various Democrats (led by none other than Jimmy Carter) mounted an unsuccessful "Stop McGovern" effort in Miami in 1972, even though both Ford and McGovern went into those conventions leading in delegates and votes. But it isn't how they work anymore. When you listen to analysts and politicians talk about the primary process, there's a clear consensus that the spectacle of a convention in which superdelegates "overturn what's happened in the elections," as Nancy Pelosi famously put it, would be disastrous for the Democratic Party. And Pelosi's choice of the word "overturn" tells you why: It implicitly makes the will of the people, however imperfectly and haphazardly expressed.......................................................................
(Excerpt) Read more at thecurrent.theatlantic.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It matters not. Her stash of FBI files will be persuasive.
Hillary can try to persuade Super-delegates but her underperformance in Indiana isn’t going to persuade them she can win in November.
Even with the help of Operation Chaos
I think that she has a good shot at it through the super-delegates. She is obnoxious, but not crazy, and she knows what she is doing.
It is still hard for me to believe that the Clintons will not get the nomination. If they don’t I have to believe that a deal was made from which the Clintons will benefit hugely.
It's her turn, dammit! No uppity little one term Senator should be allowed to take it away from her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.