Obama needs to hammer Hillary

Barack Obama has lost only two of the last seventeen contests. Unfortunately for him, one of them was Ohio.

He didn't lose Texas. It was a draw. Hillary Clinton attracted more popular votes, but once the caucus results are finalized I am fairly certain Obama will have won more Texas pledged delegates -- truly the only victory that ultimately counts.

Remember Al Gore? His 2000 victory in the popular vote is a mere historical footnote to his loss in the Electoral College, which is where presidents truly get elected. So while winning the popular vote in individual states is important for bragging rights during the current primary season, it is the delegates from each contest who ultimately will cast the deciding votes at the Democratic convention in Denver.

I know that Obama doesn't want to come out and throw dirt at his opponent. But he could make this compelling argument against her candidacy without being slimy:

"We (the Obama campaign) continue to exceed expectations in states where our opponent was supposed to crush us. Our opponent was way ahead early in Iowa. We won that state. We weren't supposed to win in Missouri, but we did. In New Hampshire, we narrowed the lead to near nothingness by election day and won the most delegates. We were supposed to be D.O.A. in Nevada -- we nearly won the popular vote and won more delegates than our opponent. We were supposed to get swept away by our opponent in a state where she held all the advantages -- Texas -- and yet we will probably have more delegates from that state than she will. Why is it that Senator Clinton is unable to maintain her so-called natural advantages in states that, according to you in the press, she should have won strongly? What is it that she is unable to do that we are clearly doing by turning sure blowouts into nailbiters, and even victories? What will her campaign do when we turn a lead of more than 20 points in Pennsylvania into a competitive contest? Why is Senator Clinton continually losing support in areas of strength while we continue to get stronger as the race goes on?"

Obama needs to take the battle to Hillary Clinton. He needs to get out of a defensive stance and go after her with energy and gusto. He needs to emphasize that only he can hold onto his base of support while he could attract most of hers in a general election. She cannot defeat John McCain because her presence on the ticket will inspire a showing of solidarity among Republicans that might be beyond compare in the modern era.

He needs to hammer away at her assertion of having "foreign policy experience" sipping tea with other political spouses while international treaties and agreements were hammered out in a neighbouring room. He has to make political hay with Geraldine Ferraro and her wild assertion that Barack can thank his race for his lead in the popular vote, delegates and states won. He needs to hammer away at Clinton's lack of judgement for keeping her on the team when she has so clearly crossed the line of political civility (which is a hard line to cross in such a bare-knuckle game).

Finally, he has to ask the electorate: "do you have any reason to vote for Hillary, really, besides the fact that she's Bill's wife?" What is it that she's bringing to the table that America hasn't already seen forty-three times before?

If he can shine the harsh spotlight back onto Hillary, and maybe melt some of the make-up that conceals what's really going on, then he will fight back in Pennsylvania and give the superdelegates pause. The reasons for supporting Hillary are starting to run out. Let's hope Barack Obama can help the Democratic Party get to the bottom of that list a lot quicker than they are now.