Had Barack Obama lost 11 in a row like Hillary Clinton did, the superdelegates would have end this thing right then and there.
Jed is right. This isn't all Clinton's fault. It isn't all the media's fault. The fault lies squarely in the lap of the superdelegates who should have jumped on board the Obama train long ago.
From the Jed Report:
The superdelegate's hesitation, and in some cases cowardice, is to blame for the mess we Democrats find ourselves in.
Since late February, it has been clear that the Clinton campaign's only hope for victory rested in their hands. Over the past two months, the sole uncertainty about the campaign has been whether or not superdelegates will stage a coup against the voters.
At any point during the last two months, superdelegates could have made it clear that they would support the will of voters. Instead, by declaring their indecision, they provided Clinton with a new rationale for her campaign. Effectively, they encouraged her coup attempt. It was if they said to her: if you can prove to us that Barack Obama is unelectable, we will overturn the judgment of voters.
And the ultimate blame for making this possible rests with the very people who are supposed to lead the Democratic Party: the superdelegates.[snip]
The point is clear: Hillary Clinton took the superdelegates up on their irresponsible challenge and tried to prove that Obama is unelectable. Meanwhile, Obama could not respond as forcefully to Clinton as he would have to John McCain. He knew that unlike Clinton, he had to worry about unifying the party after her superdelegate gambit. He couldn't afford to attack her the way she attacked him.
Moreover, the media created a new Clinton-friendly narrative in order to support a continued campaign. Between Clinton's attacks, his measured response, and the media's pile-on, Obama endured his worst two-month stretch of the campaign so far. Making matters more difficult, the key primaries were on Hillary Clinton's home turf.
read more | digg story