Posted by
A.K. on Thursday, February 07, 2008 5:46:05 AM
As we all know, the only thing winning the popular vote can get you is a good ol' pat on the back. Al Gore certainly knows better than most. In the Vice President's case, it's the electoral vote that ultimately matters. In this election season, delegates are the prized vote that can solely deliver presidential nominations. After the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, the pundits made a big deal out of momentum. And while positive momentum may be a sign of a well-run campaign, they don't mean squat if you can't rack up the delegates.
This appears to apply greatest to the Democrats in their battle for their party's nomination. The insurgent campaign of Barack Obama has produced extraordinary results against the well-oiled machine of Bill and Hillary Clinton. After splitting the first two states 1-1, Iowa to Obama and New Hampshire to Clinton, Nevada became the latest state to become a player in the party's new voting schedule this year.
After more voters filled out Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot, the Clinton campaign claimed victory. In a tough race, they paraded Nevada as a second straight win, building momentum. However, Sen. Obama actually received more delegates than her rival due to the formatting of counties in Nevada. So who really was the winner?
This brings me to my point. When the critics on TV where exclaiming Barack Obama as the candidate with all the momentum, why was the Clinton campaign allowed to go on TV and deny the Illinois senator's impressive rush of support by saying its all about the delegates, nothing else matters? Where was this sort of talk after Nevada. Of course it can be attributed to the spin of each campaign, but I believe these surrogates of Clinton should be held accountable for their words.