Chalian Stumps the Clinton Campaign
EmailOn the Clinton campaign conference call yesterday, a telling (non) answer from Clinton communications staffers Howard Wolfson and Phil Singer.
When ABC News Political Director David Chalian asked them asked about the Texas contest and how they would assess victory in that complicated caucus/primary contest, the answer was tellingly confused.
The reason this is significant (beyond the Clinton campaign’s seeming unpreparedness for the Texas contest — more on that HERE) is the possibility that Clinton could win Texas overall but lose the delegate allocation in Texas.
David Chalian: On Texas and Ohio, you guys have obviously pointed to the importance of these states for quite a while, does a Texas victory only get considered a victory if you win both the primary there and the final delegate count due to the complex system there?
Howard Wolfson: Look, I think all of you will be looking at a lot of different data points to determine who wins the night. I think obviously, the delegate counts in this state is one of them, but I’m not going to presume to tell ABC News how to determine the outcome from a rhetorical standpoint. But I think we’re going to do very very well.
David Chalian: But, I’m asking would you consider it a victory if you don’t win the delegate allocation in Texas that night?
Howard Wolfson: Ummm, you know, I’d have to think about that. I don’t know the answer to that.
David Chalian: Okay, thank you.
Howard Wolfson: That is a, ah, less than unequivocal, but I don’t know, Phil, do you have a thought on that?
Phil Singer: Umm, no.
Howard Wolfson: You’ve stumped us. The last question has stumped us.
*
These are not gentlemen who are frequently stumped, I might add.
- jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Boy, Hillary sure surrounds herself with competent people, I wonder how her White House would be…
Posted by: Dem | February 18, 2008, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm
Ready to lead on day one? Ha!
Posted by: Julie | February 18, 2008, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
DEM: You are very much right !!
The incompetence of Hillary advisers are
incredible. Of course, a PLATITUDE as the question of Chalian merited only one answer: “you can answer this yourself, next question please”
But of course, neither the Obama advisers are champion of competence, as
accepting to discuss the paternity of OBAMA’s phrases.
caminito
Posted by: TOM WITTMANN | February 18, 2008, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
These Clintonites were off there game today. This is how it shoulda went down (props to Rummy):
Wolfson:
“There are things we know that we know about the primary / caucus system in Texas. There are known unknowns about that system. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know about the way delagates are awarded. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things about the Texas system we don’t know we don’t know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together about the way Texas Delagates are awarded whether by primary, caucus or otherwise, and we then say well that’s basically what we see as the way the delegates are allocated, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each day, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.
Chalian: Uh…what???
Singer:
“So you see, I think what you’ll find, however it is that we do substantively in Texas, there will be near-perfect clarity as to how that is. And it will be known, and it will be known to the American people. And it will be known to you in the media, Probably before it is decided. But it will be known.”
Posted by: The Commander Guy | February 18, 2008, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm
Oh Gosh! They are all totally confused. The Tsunami on 5th Feb. did not come as they expected it earlier.
Posted by: Peace | February 18, 2008, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
Well, the reason why they are so stumped is because they are so consumed in trying to pick a mud-slinging fight with obama with the darnest of thing.. If they are spending an hour a day on call to frame a plagiarism charge on Obama for what essentially is using a rift or a style of rhetoric – then what can you expect! I see the hillybilly camp as desperate and shameless bunch – almost makes you feel sorry for them!
Posted by: RO | February 18, 2008, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
Perfect example of media bias and their support of Obama. The interview was intended to bait the Clinton people into saying something they can use against them. Lets let the people in Texas vote, that’s the only thing in this story that matters.
Posted by: Firefighter | February 18, 2008, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
I’m sorry, “Yes we can” was not invented by Mr. obama, it’s Mr Hugo Chavez’s. These are no more his words than hers and “fired up”, she used in Iowa before his campaign, and its not long enogh to be considered plagerism. Fired up is a catch phrase. It’s like claiming the authorship of “Vote for me”
The man stole an entire speech, not to mention an election platform. His words aren’t his own.
Posted by: s.b. | February 18, 2008, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm
Well, in Nevada they claimed victory, though Obama won the delegate count…
Posted by: Judy | February 18, 2008, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
Firefighter
Lame Comment. HRC is saying she’s gunna go with a Texas Strategy to close the delegate deficit with O.
The problem is that no one in the HRC campaign has a clue how/when the delegates are awarded. Turns out she could kick *** in popular vote but still lose the delegate battle to O.
So this ready on Day One Candidate launches a Texas Strategy without (a) not having taken time to learn the rules and whether they favor her or O; and (b) without having invested the time and $ to organize for the Caucus.
No planning, no preparation just a roll of the dice going on here.
Posted by: The Commander Guy | February 18, 2008, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
s.b. your comments are almost always vacuous, but your post below takes the cake. Hugo Chavez is the current president of Venezuela. Cesar Chavez was the founder of the UFW whose slogan was “Yes, we can.”
Posted by: Kevin | February 18, 2008, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm
Well hasn’t the Ill. Senators camp stated that the will of the people should be represented in Delegates. So if Hillary wins the popular vote, delegates would represent that right?
Posted by: irma | February 18, 2008, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
I thinks it’s a little silly to suggest that the advisors were “stumped” by the question. It seems to me the question was intended to lock Wolfson into defining victory for Clinton, a position all the politicians and advisors studiously avoid. It’s disingenuous to suggest Wolfson and Singer couldn’t, rather than wouldn’t, lock themselves in with a specific answer to that question. Ask the Obama camp the same question and see how specific their answer is.
Posted by: Lori | February 18, 2008, 7:52 pm 7:52 pm
Lori, try reading the full blog post. It is not “suggesting” Wolfson and Singer were stumped. Wolfson actually said “You’ve stumped us.” Do you think it was “silly” to quote him?
Posted by: Reed | February 19, 2008, 11:29 am 11:29 am
ABC News should not ask the Clinton campaign what would be “considered a victory” and providing the Clinton camp with a chance to spin them.
If Hillary loses the delegate count in Texas, then SHE LOSES TEXAS, period. Not only that, but she loses the race for the nomination because she will no longer be able to catch Obama.
The Democratic nomination is determined by the number of delegates, not the popular vote state-by-state, and that’s especially the case in a state with both a caucus and a primary.
Posted by: john doe | February 19, 2008, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm