 | ||
 | Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years' | |
| 2008 could see turnout tsunami | |
| Nancy Reagan to endorse McCain | |
| Opposition sniper fodder | |
| Capitol Hill's top jocks | |
| Operation Chaos | |
| Gallup Daily Tracking | |
| Clinton Camp Tries to Spread the Pain | |
| Quote of the Day | |
| McCain's Housing Speech |
| Why Obama's Speech Was Unconvincing | |
| The Democratic Battle Continues | |
| John McCain's Remarks on Economic Woes | |
| Righting the Right | |
| The Audacity of Rhetoric |
| Why Obama's Speech Was Unconvincing | |
| Race and Politics | |
| Who is Barack Obama? | |
| An Unfair Attack on the Clintons | |
| On the Lookout for the 'Bradley Effect' |
|
March 25, 2008
The Democratic Battle Continues
By Jack KellySuper delegates should vote for Sen. Barack Obama because he's black, many pundits are saying -- though not in precisely those words.
Hillary Clinton should drop out because it's all but impossible mathematically for her to overcome Sen. Obama's slim leads in elected delegates and total votes cast, wrote Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen of the Politico.
"Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote -- which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle -- and use that achievement to impress super delegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else," they wrote.
Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's media writer, isn't impressed. "Remember when the media wrote off Hillary after Iowa, and again again during the 10-state losing streak on the way to Ohio and Texas? Well this time they really mean it," he said.
Thanks to the Democratic party's bizarre rules, it's also all but impossible for Sen. Obama to win the nomination in the primaries and caucuses.
The Democratic National Committee, in its wisdom (rather, in the utter absence of it) created 796 super delegates (more than the elected delegates in California, New York and Pennsylvania combined) and made them free agents.
Having guaranteed that in a close race it would be the super delegates, not the voters in the primaries and caucuses, who would select the nominee, many Democrats are arguing for an ersatz form of democratic legitimacy. Super delegates are morally obligated to vote for the candidate who received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses, they say.
But why is this more "democratic" than to have the super delegates vote for the winner of the primary or caucus in their state, or to vote for the candidate with the higher standing in public opinion polls when all the primaries and caucuses are over? Because only the first unambigously benefits Sen. Obama.
If super delegates choose her over him, Hillary will have "stolen" the nomination, pundits argue. But unless she's threatening to take a tire iron to the kneecaps of super delegates who support Sen. Obama, this isn't true.
The super delegates may choose wisely or foolishly, courageously or cravenly. They may choose the candidate they like the best, or fear the most; the one they think would be the better president, or the one they think is the more electable. But any choice they make is legitimate, because the DNC made them free agents.
The revelation that Sen. Obama's pastor is a foul-mouthed bigot makes him unelectable in November, Sen. Clinton argues. He wouldn't have done so well in February if voters had known then about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. (which they would have, if the journalists covering the Obama campaign had done less cheerleading and more reporting).
Sen. Obama, moreover, built his slim lead by winning mostly in states where Democratic prospects in November range from slim to none. It is she who has won most of the big states where Democrats must prevail, Hillary argues.
If Sen. Clinton's opponent were Barry O'Bama, charming Irish-American pol with the gift of gab, these arguments would have more resonance. But, as columnist Bob Novak notes, the super delegates "fear antagonizing African-Americans, who have become the hard-core Democratic base." Geraldine Ferraro, who Sen. Obama unfairly likened to his racist pastor, was right. Sen. Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he weren't black.
Many who suspect Sen. Clinton is right about Sen. Obama's electability still would rather nominate him than her. Better to lose an election than to split the party. Besides, if angry blacks stay home in November, Hillary won't be electable, either.
Caught between a rock and a hard place, many Democrats hope Hillary will go quietly into that dark night. But few can name instances when the Clintons have put the interests of others ahead of their own.
Perhaps Democrats should let voters decide. The question in Pennsylvania's primary April 22 is not whether Hillary will win, but by how much, so the decisive primaries may be those May 6, in Indiana and North Carolina. If either candidate wins both, super delegates could in good conscience gravitate to him or her. If they split, the Democrats' nightmare will continue.
