Caption should read:Passenger: Hillary but what about the math?
Hillary: What Math are you talking about?
Passenger: The delegate count and now your tax returns that you are burning in the back?
Hillary: Oh that stuff we ignore or deny that stuff like we have with everything else.
The Obama campaign announced yesterday that Carol Fowler (DNC-SC), Mary Long (DNC-GA), Roy LaVerne (DNC-TX), Rhine McLin (DNC-OH) and back on Saturday Joel Wineke (DNC-WI) and Stewart Buckwalter (DNC-AL) as committed superdelegates. This brings the best accounting 240 (Clinton) and 197 (Obama) .
NBC News Tom Brokow reported last night on MSNBC election coverage that:
" ...sources inside the Obama camp have told him that they are sitting on 50 superdelegate endorsements that they have not yet announced and that they are ready to go public with those endorsements soon."If this turns out to be true, it appears that the Obama campaign might be looking to change the narrative again, for if indeed they really have 50+ new superdelegates, including the rumored former Clinton aide, Gov. Bill Richardson who apparently all but publicly endorsed Obama last Sunday, it could halt any political momentum Clinton got from RI, OH and TX by making for a nomination virtually impossible. Ultimately this could point to a Clinton camp miscalculation regarding the apparent role and thoughts of the superdelegates possibly nominating a losing candidate with in the pledged delegate and popular vote counts. The miscalculation being that her nomination would rip the party apart at the top hurting the party's chances to win in November, not unlike the elections of 1968, 1980 and 1984. The superdelegates are reportedly to be looking at keeping the party together behind Obama, knowing that the Big States will fold in behind the eventual Democratic Nominee regardless but with Obama's perceived strength in supposed battleground and Red States coupled with Obama's new voting base is becoming very attractive to the party's leadership.
Obama campaign launched their counter-punch to the negative campaigning of the Clinton's discussing Hillary Clinton's refusal to release her tax returns and Bill Clinton's Foundation's curious fund-raising practices. The Atlantic.com's Marc Ambinder's blog post Obama Strikes Back reports:
TO: Interested Parties
FR: The Obama Campaign
RE: TAX RETURNS: What does Clinton have to hide?
DA: March 5, 2008
The Clinton campaign today maintained that “the vetting of Barack Obama has just begun.” The truth is, more than a year into this campaign, some very simple vetting of Hillary Clinton has yet to start.
In the face of her unwillingness to release her tax returns, Hillary Clinton has made the false case in this campaign that she is more electable because she has been fully vetted. When it comes to her personal finances, Senator Clinton’s refusal to release her taxes returns denies the media and the American people the opportunity to even begin that process. Though her campaign has tried to kick the issue down the road, Democratic voters deserve to know, right now, why it is she is hiding the information in her tax returns from last year.
A short time later on the Daily Conference Call to the press Atlantic.com's Ambinder reports on the following post he titled Dueling Spin:
On to the call by Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The vetting of Hillary Clinton is just going to start," he said.
The buzzwords: Vin Gupta and taxes.
"We're going to ask your guys to your jobs."
No comments:
Post a Comment