Clinton under fire.

Dear students, 

It's been some time since I last posted on the blog, I've been quite busy with my research project recently.

This is only a very short summary of what's been in the news lately. 

Clinton has been ridiculed for her overblown account of a visit to Bosnia. She was making a point on her foreign policy experience and credentials, she recalled landing in Tusla under sniper fire and running to cover. The media did some fact checking on this event and have since been running over and over again a video of the welcome ceremony on the airport tarmac : there was no sign at all of immediate danger, and even less of bullets flying in the air.

Here is a video from NBC presenting this event Followed by political analyst Tim Russert's comment on the state of the Democratic race : 

Of course, there is no end to the youtube mocking videos of this blatant exaggeration. But Hillary Clinton has tried to minimize the entire contreversy and has even joked about it. 

How can Hillary Clinton win the nomination?

Obviously she will need decisive victories in Pennsylvania (April 22), Indiana and North Carolina (May 6) and the following contests ( West-Virginia, Nebraska, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Montana and South Dakota). However it is virtually impossible for her to be ahead in pledged delegates (people elected by the Deomcratic grassroots to sit and vote at the convention) when the primary season ends mid June, due to the proportional distribution of delegates in the Democratic primaries. If Clinton wins most of these contests she will be able to claim momentum and victory in some of the essential "big states" and she will narrow the gap to a virtual tie. In that case she can really make a claim to the super-delegates.   

Indeed, the only way she can win the nomination is by garnering a significant majority of the 800 or so  super-delegates (party members and elected officials who automatically get to sit and vote at the convention). 

But to do so, she needs to convince them that they can and should go against the "popular vote", which is slightly infavour of Obama and likely to remain that way. Obviously this does not go down well with the Democratic voters who will feel disenfranchised if the party bigwigs decide of the outcome of the nomination regardless of their choice. The risk is that many of the Obama supporters (the young, the educated whites and the Blacks) will feel betrayed and decide not to vote in November if Clinton is the Democratic candidate, out of spite they might even turn to John McCain whose appeal to independents is undeniable. By choosing Clinton over Obama the superdelegates may well jeopardize the chance of the Democrats of taking the White House back from the GOP. 

However a similar argument might also work to the advantage of Clinton : the superdelegates should choose the most "electable", i.e. experienced candidate and she has tried to paint Obama as too inexperienced for the job, untested and offering huge potential for attacks from the Republican candidate, and all this might be true. The Clinton camp have harshly attacked  superdelegates that turned to Obama. A well-known Clinton supporter has accused Bill Richardson who endorsed Obama  last week of being a Judas. Isn't Clinton sending a strong message to the superdelegates who might be thinking of flipping : don't mess with us or we'll mess with you.  

The core issue comes down to this: what is the role of the superdelegates? 

Should they confirm the popular choice and simply give a clear majority to the candidate with the most pledged delegates in order to ensure a smooth convention? 

Or should they act as the Democratic wise men and take into account the so-called electability of the candidates and make their choice in conscience? 

Some Democrats have been calling for a mini-convention in June, where all the superdelegates would convene, discuss and make a choice. This would clearly put the decision making into their hands and would end the suspens and allow the winner to launch a national campaign against John McCain. Will they stand the pressure of making such a difficult decision under public scrutiny.  

For in-depth coverage on this issue : read or listen to NPR's coverage.