Obama’s historic speech strikes the perfect chord
 
In the 2001 World Series, New York Yankee 2nd baseman Alfonso Soriano hit a game and series tying home run in extra innings that seemed to turn the momentum of the series. I remember thinking at the time tht if the Yankees went on to win the series that the homer would go down as one of the great moments in Yankee lore. Well, the Yankees lost the series to Arizona and that Soriano homerun is barely a footnote to what was a historic series. I had similar thoughts today when watching Barack Obama deliver a historic speech on race relations in America. My thought was that if Obama goes on to secure the Democratic nomination and then defeats John McCain for the presidency that this speech will not only prove to be the pivotal point of the Democratic campaign, but will go down in history as one of the great all-time examples of political rhetoric right along with King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
Obama had a very difficult path to travel today in finding a way to put Reverand Wright’s inflamatory rhetoric behind while not throwing a man he has stated was a close friend and influential character in his life under the bus. At the same time, Obama had to address the issue of judgement and why he chose Wright and the Trinity Church out of all the places he could have worshipped and at the same time explain how he could sit in that pew for two decades, listening to his pastor’s provactive comments without cause for concern.  For my money the Senator struck the perfect balance and delivered on all points. The speech he gave was intelectually nuanced, passionate, and honest, though never expedient. Most impressive to me was that Obama - knowing the political cost of doing so - refused to distance himself from Wright, saying that to do so would equate to “distancing (him)self from the black community.” I have more respect for him that he would stand by his friend even with polls showing that 92% of Ameriocans disapprove of him than had he thrown the man overboard. This speaks volumes about Obama’s character.
I actually think as we move ahead from this moment that the Wright debacle will ultimately have helped Obama. On the one hand there are certainly no longer questions about Obama being a Muslim. More importantly, Obama’s speech highlighted the deep fissures that still exist in this country and the work that still needs to be done to heal the racial scars that have come from years of injustice. It’s hard to imagine that anyone who heard the speech didn’t come away thinking that there is both much work to be done on this issue and that Barack Obama is a candidate uniquely qualified to tackle this gigantic issue.
I hope and pray America sees it the same way, for I believe we would be extremely lucky to have Barack Obama as our president.
Olbermann’s Special Comment for the Ages
“This way madness lies.”Â
Clinton has obviously calculated that the racial overtones being floated by her surrogates are more helpful to her goal than is any potential fallout. It’s The Democratic party be damned. Polls show she isn’t getting any of the African American vote in her battle against Obama, so why not polarize the whites and position this as a race war? Sure it will kill the party in the intermediate and long term, but that’s not her problem.
Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment is particularly notable as he has always been an ardent Clinton supporter.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=xtAja20kTCA[/youtube]
Obama finally rebuts Clinton’s absurd experience claim
The Obama camp has stripped off the gloves and launched an utterly brilliant attack on the lie that is Clinton’s vast foreign policy experience. Obama foreign policy advisor Greg Craig, formerly lead counsel for the Clinton impeachment team, issued the following memo, rebutting point by point each of Clinton’s specious “experience” claims:
There is no reason to believe…that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis…
The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.†That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
Finally they are calling Clinton to task on this absurdity. It never made a lick of sense to me why these claims were just being accepted as reality. I was a financial advisor several years back. Are you going to feel comfortable calling my wife to implement complex options strategies as a hedge against currency fluctuations? I hope the Obama camp stays relentless on this point, as it undermines the very foundation of the Clinton strategy.   Here is more:
When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test†is simply not supported by her record.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.
Northern Ireland:
Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.†It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.†With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.â€
News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times.” Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.â€
Bosnia:
Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.â€
Kosovo:
Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.†It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,†however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.
The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.†Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.â€
Rwanda:
Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.
At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.
Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.
China
Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.
Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.†In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.†He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,†and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.†He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.â€
If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced†men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.
Conclusion:
The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.†That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.†As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.†In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.
Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader — an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.
And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.
Obama’s Nightmare Week nets him 12 Delegates
It seems that Obama has shaken off the brief slump that had his national numbers dropping below Clinton’s through last week. Gallup released an updated poll showing his numbers back to where they were prior to March 4. That should only improve further tomorrow, as Barack should win Mississippi handily. He currently leads there 54-38.  More on Obama’s supposed nightmare week:  We’ve already argued that Obama was the real winner in Texas, but also underreported was the frontrunner picking up 12 Super Delegates to Clinton’s 4 last week. Couple this with the 4 delegates he picked up once California’s vote was certified (and the resultant Clinton loss of 4), and Obama actually netted 12 delegates during arguably his worst week of the campaign. Not bad. A couple more bad weeks like that and we’ll be done with Hillary for good.  And more on the Super Delegates:  It occurred to me while watching Ed Rendell on Meet the Press that people are missing the point if the believe the Supers wouldn’t dare override the will of the people and hand this thing to Clinton. The problem with that theory is that it views the Super Delegates as a monolithic voting bloc, which it is not. You’ve already seen the individual SD’s like Rendell rationalize in every which way so that their chosen candidate gets the job and they get their ambassadorship or cabinet post. They don’t seem to have their eye on the long-term.  Can anyone really imagine the Rendells and McAuliffes of the world bypassing Clinton because of some trivial matter like will of the people?  John Corzine was on Hardball tonight and informed Chris Matthews that if Hillary can eke out the popular vote that would be enough to persuade him to throw his vote her way. Does anybody really think they are not going to find a back door into this nomination? The problem with this whole popular vote concept is that the caucus states don’t count votes the same way the primary votes do, thus the states where Obama is strong the vote will be severely undercounted. Hillary can win the popular vote, but it won’t really mean anything, not that it will matter much to her or her acolytes. Â
Obama Won Texas, Not Clinton!
Â
It is time for the media to rethink the narrative that has emerged over the past week. Â Momentum has shifted to Hillary Clinton on the belief that she took 3 of 4 contests on Tuesday including wins in the big states - Texas and Ohio. Â Not so fast.
Remember that Texas holds this bizarre hybrid contest known as the “primacaucus”, with a primary during the day and a caucus at night.  Declarations of Hillary’s razor thin Texas win were based solely on the primary portion of the contests; the Texas caucus results were not yet calculated.  While the final caucus results might not be published for months, NPR is reporting that with 41% of the Texas caucus vote in, Obama currently enjoys an insurmountable lead of 56% - 44%.  This will give Obama a 7 delegate edge in the Texas caucus and a 3 delegate edge for the entire Texas contest.  This means Barack Obama won Texas and not Clinton.  This changes the story dramatically.
  All the “Obama can’t win the big state” arguments are out the window as he has won the biggest state of all.  There was no upset Tuesday night; a split was the outcome the Obama camp expected, what the polls predicted, and what the Clinton campaign was suggesting could not be overcome just a few weeks ago.
 The media love a good story and Clinton rising from the dead certain makes for good copy.  The only problem is it isn’t reality. There was no upset.  Instead of trouncing Obama 3 states to 1 on Tuesday, the two Democratic candidates split the night.  The delegate count was essentially unchanged and thus the story should have remained unchanged, but spin is a powerful thing and the Clintons, having birthed the “spin room”, are the masters at it.  This is sort of like the back page retraction after a hatchet job has attached itself to the public consciousness.  Will the media jump on this story now that it is a real story?Â
Obama’s got the Math, but Clinton’s got the Machine
Â
Now that Hillary has taken three of four - an outcome we predicted - who really has the advantage going into the stretch run? Â The math is certainly on Obama’s side, but we shouldn’t go anointing him the Democratic nominee just yet.
Â
 Out of the 2,546 delegates that have been awarded, 1,340 have gone to Barack Obama and 1,206 have gone to Hillary Clinton (RCP). There are 611 additional pledged delegates at stake in the remaining contests and the history of this primary season holds (the winner receiving no more than 52 % or 318 of the remaining), then we are looking at the super delegates becoming a factor, or “automatic delegates†as the Clinton acolytes have begun calling them. The numbers are on Obama’s side, albeit slightly, as he would need just 46% of the 795 party leaders to secure the nomination. Clinton needs 63%. Â
Â
Complicating matters for Obama is the Democratic machinery, which is firmly in Clinton’s corner. Further, while Obama’s February winning streak was due in part to a schedule that dramatically favored him, the schedule from here out is kinder to Hillary with Pennsylvania and Indiana (two important bellwethers) comprised of demographics that firmly favor Clinton. Obama will almost certainly head to the convention with a marginal lead in delegates, but he won’t have enough to lock up the nomination meaning he somehow has to battle the Clinton machine in Denver.
Â
This all makes Florida and Michigan and what Howard Dean does with their unseated delegates enormously important. Do the Democrats risk going into the general election by not only disenfranchising voters in two key states, but possibly thumbing their nose at their entire electorate by allowing the Super Delegates to decide this thing? For a party that has been all about making all the votes count and railing against the “stolen†election’s of 2000, and 2004 it could be lethal, not to mention the long-term damage dealt to the party by undercutting the historic movement that is Obamamania. Would African Americans ever again trust the Democrats if they pulled the rug out from Obama after he won more votes than Hillary Clinton?
Â
While the conventional wisdom has suggested that the longer this fight goes on the more it weakens the Democrats there is a contrary view worth considering. Whoever survives this knife fight will emerge stronger, having withstood everything thrown at them with the knowledge of how to defend against every possible attack. More importantly, both Clinton and Obama will their organizations to the final group of states where their growing infrastructure will help them battle each other. Having secured the Republican nomination, John McCain will not have to bother bringing in the foot soldiers, but this will put him at a disadvantage in those states, particularly Pennsylvania and Ohio, come the general election, as he will have to start building his organization in those states from square one.
Democratic Race on Verge of Turning. Why Clinton will Win.
The latest polls in Ohio show that the Obama surge has run it’s course and that Hillary will win the state without much problem.  More ominously for Obama is that polls have tightened again in Texas with momentum over the last 48 hours appearing to be clearly on the former first lady’s side.  With Clinton also leading in Rhode Island and on the verge of taking three of four tomorrow it seems we could be seeing a major turn in Democratic race.  After winning 11 straight primaries to close out February how can Obama possibly still lose this thing?  It appears that there are a few forces at work, all of which are unfavorable to Obama.       First, there is the relationship between Obama and his former friend Tony Rezko, whose  is currently on trial for corruption and other sundries.  The Rezko trial began today in Chicago and questions are being raised about a former land deal (sound familiar?) between Obama and Rezko.  The last thing Obama needs on the eve in the four primaries are questions about his ethics or business dealings.  While it seems that Obama has been forthcoming about this issue, questions remain as to whether more lurks around the corner and that might be enough to justify Clinton staying in the race until June when Puerto Rico holds their primary.       Then there is the NAFTA issue.  For the past week the Obama campaign has had to answer questions as to whether a top advisor of his met with the Canadians and suggested that his Obama’s harsh rhetoric vis a vis the free trade deal was little more than political jockeying for the Ohio vote and that his comments should be disregarded.  Not only would this be harmful to Obama in Ohio, but suggestions that Obama speaks from both sides of his mouth and panders to the locals could cause voters throughout the remaining primary states to question everything that he says from Rezko, to NAFTA, to health care, and Iraq.  Recent polling in Ohio suggests that this issue has gained traction there and is the reason for Clinton pulling back ahead after Obama briefly grabbed a lead.       It also seems that Clinton has finally gotten her campaign message straight.  Perhaps the ousting of Patty Solis Doyle is paying dividends.  The Clinton message for the past week has been unified, polished, and effective as they hammer away at Obama’s “readiness”.  One must ask why they waited so long to hit what was their most effective talking point, but perhaps there is still time.  Of all the issues, this should be the most worrisome for Obama, for one thing John McCain has going for him is readiness and if voters believe Obama might have difficulty on this issue they might trend back to Hillary.       I think Hillary will do well enough tomorrow to stay in the race at least until Pennsylvania and maybe longer.  Even though it’s impossible for her to acquire the delegates to win this outright I just feel somehow it will be her and McCain in the fall.  Whether they believe somehow Obama will still implode or they have something else up their sleeve, they are going to hang around long enough and then get this thing by attrition.    Perhaps if she weakens Obama enough, so that he loses in the fall she’ll just jump back in in 2012.  This was whispered in 2004 when there were questions over the support the Clinton’s gave John Kerry.Â
Obama: Pro Israel does not mean Pro Likud
How refreshing to have a presidential candidate tell us the truth, even if it runs counter to their political aspirations. Â Barack Obama, campaigning before jewish leaders in Cleveland said this regarding U.S. Israeli policy:
“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud ap-proach to Israel, then you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.  If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.” Â
Obama disputed the notion that anyone asking tough questions regarding the Palestinian issue or suggesting alternative approaches to merely “crushing the opposition” is anti-Israel.  With Ohio’s pivotal primary coming next Tuesday it would have been very easy for Obama, who has been the target of a vicious email campaign claiming he is Muslim, a Farrakhan proxy, and an anti-Semite, to pander instead of delivering unsavory medicine.  Â
More and more I am coming to the belief that Obama holds certain things higher than his immediate political interests.  Most importantly, he nailed this tricky issue.  Israel can not thrive over the long haul with successive U.S. administrations acting as their enabler.  2/3 of Israeli citizens want peace with the Palestinians, yet our government has thwarted that process in the name of real security for all parties.  It is time to reclaim our middle eastern policy from the neo-conservatives.    George Bush ran as a man who could reach across party lines to get things done.  We know how that worked out.  Is Obama the man George Bush promised he was? Â
Leaked pic of Obama in Somali Headdress shows Clinton Campaign at New Low
I personally found the picture of Barack in Somali headdress published on Drudge Report to be offensive.  Not that the content itself was disturbing, but the manner in which the Clintons attempted to use is smacks of pure desperation.  The subtext of the pic is that Obama is a Muslim and that should bother you.  Just to clarify, Obama is not a Muslim, but a Christian.  This picture, I believe, is going to blow up in Clinton’s face, with Democrats in droves condemning the Rovian tactic. If anything should drive the establishment to pressure Clinton to shut it down, this picture is it.  This does not assist the democratic cause or help them in their November push.  To me the campaign seems downright manic oscillating between the respectful posture in Thursday’s debate and the blazing rhetoric of this past weekend. It should be an interesting debate tomorrow night as Hillary is forced to defend these ugly tactics.
Clinton Campaign at a Tipping Point
The dominoes have begun to fall on the Clinton campaigns much ballyhooed superdelegate strategy as another key supporter has switched to the Obama camp. The New York Times is reporting that long time civil rights activist Rep. John Lewis of Georgia will be throwing his support behind Barack Obama instead of Clinton.
Since Obama’s sweep in last weeks Potomac primary, it has been assumed that he would head into the convention with a small, but important lead in pledged delegates.  With a 100 point lead in superdelegates (party leaders who don’t have to adhere to primary results when choosing a candidate) it was thought that Clinton could still eek out a win buy calling in the chits of these party loyalists.  The fear in the Obama camp and among supporters is that no matter  what happens between now and August, the backroom dealing would somehow put Clinton over the top, despite the will of the popular vote.   Â
Two key points  that should worry Clinton. Â
By citing his districts overwhelming support for Obama and that it would be wrong for him his vote to run counter their wishes, Lewis sends an important message.  One of the Democrats biggest problems in a prolonged battle is the notion that this contest could be decided by superdelegates, who could ignore the results of the primaries and install whichever candidate they wish as the nominee.  How can the party that has fought disenfranchisement for the past eight years put forth a nominee that doesn’t represent the will of the voters?  Do the Democrats really want to risk a street fight with the Republicans with illegitimacy being used as a dagger against them?  Obviously, if the superdelegates adhere to the voters wishes and vote consistent with primary results then Obama wins. Â
Lewis also cited the sense of movement and spirit in Obama’s campaign. Â All season long Clinton has trumpeted her “electability” as an important reason to choose her over Obama, but how can she make the case that she offers a better chance against John McCain if she can’t even defeat Barack Obama? Â Electability is a key issue and by citing the movement and spirit of Obama’s campaign Lewis is stating that he wants to cast his vote with a winner. Â Right now Obama enjoys the appearance of a winner more than Clinton. Â Â Â Â
There have been numerous defections in the past week, but none are as potentially ominous to Clinton as Lewis.  As a respected and influential member of the African American community his loss is particularly painful to the Clinton campaign and it sends a message to other superdelegates beginning to waver that it is okay to switch to Obama.  The more superdelegates switch to Obama’s side the greater will be the perception of his inevitability and the more other superdelegates will want to climb on board, lest they risk remaining aligned with the wrong candidate and one with little to offer politically come the Denver convention.
Â
Momentum is all about momentum, which itself is about the perception of momentum.Â
