Saturday, March 15, 2008

Senator Obama Doesn't Get the Pennsylvania Primary

3/15/2008--Last Thursday, James O’Toole of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, wrote a story about the different ways the Obama and Clinton campaigns are spinning the April 22 Pennsylvania Primary. For the Obama campaign, this primary is just another contest in the search for delegates. For the Clinton campaign, Pennsylvania is a must win for Obama. If Senator Clinton wins, she is the nominee.

Even as a Pennsylvania Obama supporter, which I am, I agree with Senator Clinton. How can you be the nominee of the Democratic Party after losing the popular vote in California, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania? The only big state Senator Obama has won is his home state of Illinois and, of course, Senator Clinton won New York.

It is true that a delegate is a delegate. If Senator Obama were actually going to win the 2025 delegates needed for nomination, it would not matter in what states or what order he won them. But no one is going to win the needed number. The superdelegates are going to decide the outcome. And, therefore, the perception of legitimacy is what will decide the race. If Senator Obama loses Pennsylvania, Senator Clinton’s claim to the nomination is as good as his, despite his small delegate lead. In fact, I think her claim is stronger. The Democrats are not going to carry several of the states Senator Obama has won, even if he is the nominee.

All of the above comes with a caveat. Apparently, the voters in Michigan and Florida will eventually get a second change at selecting a nominee for President. Winning either of those two states would be just as good as winning Pennsylvania. I only mean that Senator Obama must beat Senator Clinton in a big state at some point in order to be the nominee for President of the Democratic Party.


  1. What about J. McCain in all this Professor Ledewitz? No doubt the majority of the readers of this blog lean left politically, but B.O. v. J. McCain, in my humble opinion, isn't even a close match when it comes to experience in dealing with the external threats to this country. Where's B.O.'s experience in dealing with fundamentalists who are bent on a one world orthodoxy, and the "infidels" who can't or won't believe in this worldview, be damned? It seems to me, again IMHO, that a man who experienced the horrors of war first hand is better suited than someone from the Harvard Law Review to deal wtih those threats, with all due respect to B.O.

  2. Addendum to the above post: I supported Kerry on 04' for exactly the same reasons, and was sorry to see him villified the way his was by other vets becasue he had the courage to stand up for what he thought was right at the time, and call out unjustice where he saw it. At least Kerry was man enough to stand up to the plate during an unpopular and misguided war, unlike our current Commander in Chief, VP and noncons who hid away in academia somewhere. I found it outragous that they were the first ones that called for our current war stance when they wouldn't know an assult rifle from a broom stick, unless they go hunting to kill a helpless bird somewhere. Real men, hardly!.