Blameless Obama

The entitlement mentality:

In classic Washington finger-pointing style, the Democratic primary is only barely over but the recriminations are already being teed up.
The main thrust of them is this: Will supporters of Sen. Barack Obama blame Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if Obama loses in November?
While the point might eventually prove moot, her decision to remain in the race well past the point in which Obama appeared to have an insurmountable delegate lead has nevertheless generated discussion about what responsibility, if any, she might bear in the event of an Obama loss.

If he wins, she's just roadkill -- something he stepped over en route to his deserved glory. On the other hand, if he loses, it's her fault.

The basis of the accusation is completely illegitimate. Considering that Obama finished the primary schedule with less than 1,800 pledged delegates -- some 300 delegates shy of a nominating majority, when and how was it that Obama ever "appeared to have an insurmountable delegate lead"?

The Beltway wizards started claiming Obama had an "insurmountable" lead after Super Tuesday for one reason only: Team Obama told them to.

That's right. Only a Democrat could be so stupid as to believe that a bunch of reporters (notoriously bad at math) were able to do those early-March projected scenarios that showed Obama the winner. Those were Obama talking points, not independent journalism.

I repeat: Obama never had -- still doesn't have -- a nominating majority of pledged delegates. He clinched the nomination only because the delegate-count projections circulated as talking points by his campaign staff were endlessly repeated by pundits, creating a false impression of inevitabilty that caused a super-delegate shift to Obama.

Congratulations, Democrats: You've let the Washington press corps pick your nominee. And you have only yourselves to blame if it all goes wrong.

(Via Memeorandum.)