    
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 6666
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: 
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 08:50 pm: | 
|
The Road to Denver -- A Firewall for Hillary, A Firetrap for Obama
Carl Jeffers
Sat Feb 16, 12:35 PM ET
In the quick fire succession of recent primaries from Maine to Washington State and back to the Potomac, the voters have spoken. Republicans, although with indigestion and heartburn, have said "McCain's the one." With almost double the number of voters, most Democrats have said "yes we can" for Obama, almost half have said "ready on day one" for Hillary, and ALL have said "who the hell are these super delegates."
Republicans, who like to reward the most successful by giving them everything, have set up a "winner take all" primary system that appears certain to coronate John McCain very shortly and give him the time he needs to heal wounds and soothe fears about him within the Party, and thus enable him to focus his attention on honing his argument against the Democrats for the fall campaign.
Democrats, being more true to the Jeffersonian principles of Democracy and representation of all the people, have created a primary structure that, this year, seems certain to maintain tension and passionate competitive battling within the Party that likely will alienate at least one or more major Democratic Party constituencies regardless of who wins the nomination.
And when it's over, the battlers may have to give way to the established insiders and party elites (super delegates) to make the decision in a political blood bath on the floor of the convention. Jefferson would have been proud.
Ironically, all the current condemnation of super delegates is too little too late -- they were created exactly for the kind of situation we are shaping up to have with Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama. And when that system was set up, no one complained, not vested core constituencies, not liberal commentators and radio talk show hosts, not elected democratic officials, not Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, not Paul Begala and James Carville, and not Michael Moore and Katrina VanDen Heuvel. And not the New York Times or Washington Post, not Al Gore and Bill Clinton, and not Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich. And for that matter, not Walter Cronkite. NO ONE.
And now, all of the most serious criticism of the system comes from those who support Barack Obama (with the notable exception of Donna Brazille -- an honest broker who philosophically opposes the super delegate structure). And their reason is simple. They fear that the vote will be too close to call by the delegate count and that somehow, Hillary Clinton and Bill would then broker and negotiate their way to the majority of the super delegates -- that's why they are calling for pledges that all super delegates vote the way the voters vote in the primaries.
And if Hillary were leading right now in the delegate count and total vote (Obama is by slight margins in both), then it would be the Clinton supporters who would be screaming about the inequities and unfairness of the superdelegate system.
But be careful what you wish for. First of all, I am not convinced that the ultimate battle among super delegates would go Hillary's way. I think an equally persuasive argument could be made that Obama would ultimately sway more of the super delegates his way.
Second, the argument of most of the Obama supporters who want the super delegate structure strapped or at least some sort of "binding" pledge that they will support who the voters support is based on the assumption that Barack Obama will wind up with the most votes and delegates going in to Denver, even if he is short of the total needed for a first ballot victory. Not so fast.
Barack Obama won a most impressive string of victories from Maine to Nebraska to Louisiana to Washington State, all within a short period of just a few days. And he continues to pocket endorsements from well respected elected Democratic officials, from Senator Leahy in Vermont to Tom Daschle in South Dakota to Gov Christine Gregoire in Washington State. And he continues to stun the political world with the prowess and success of his fund raising. And I believe he will win the upcoming Wisconsin primary, another important component of his "I've won the most states with the most diverse electorate" argument. And I do believe that argument will in fact sway a lot of super delegates.
But Hillary was just announced as the winner in New Mexico, and her winning there is less important to her than the fact that she did not LOSE there. Winning there nets her 2 delegates more than Obama. But if she had lost, it would have cemented the Obama run with no interruptions, AND, it would have cast major doubt on the viability of the Hillary-Latino alliance as an argument for her candidacy for the general election in the fall. And a loss there would likely stall her closing of the gap with Obama in Wisconsin. As things stand now, Hillary is 4-5 points behind Obama in Wisconsin and could close the gap further although I expect Obama to win the state.
But here's where it gets interesting. All the pundits say Hillary not only has to win Ohio and Texas and then Pennsylvania, but she has to win big. And right now, I see Hillary winning all three of those states and winning them by 8 to 12 point margins. In those states, that's big. More significantly, it would likely put her back on top of the total vote count and with the delegate count as well.
And if nothing changes after that significantly (we all wait for Puerto Rico), it would then be the Obama supporters who would then argue that the super delegates should vote for who they think is the best candidate and can win in November etc, and that they should not be bound just by who won the most votes -- the argument they are making now.
And there's one other potential surprise that could have a major impact on this race. I believe it is likely that John Edwards may endorse Hillary Clinton for the nomination over Barack Obama. And if Edwards does so, I believe it would be for three reasons.
First, I think Edwards may conclude that Clinton is the tougher candidate to both fight in the fall campaign and to fight back against the insurance and oil companies once she were in the White House. Second, I think Edwards may conclude that Hillary's healthcare plan will come closer to accomplishing his goal of true universal health care that he feels so committed to and passionately about. And third (and this one will not be so openly discussed), Edwards was born in South Carolina and represented North Carolina. I believe he may conclude that there is a hidden issue of race in this campaign and a planned "southern and mid-states strategy" that Republicans and Swift Boat type groups will utilize in the fall campaign that will make it tougher for Obama to actually win versus Hillary's chances to actually win.
Finally, I believe that if Edwards is going to do this it will be soon as he knows he has, outside of Iowa, his strongest populist-middle class support in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to a lesser degree. Consequently, he will want to have his endorsement really make a difference -- and with those primaries looming, if he does make this endorsement it would likely be sooner rather than later.
With the points I made earlier that suggest that not only is Hillary not out of this, but in fact, she may wind up ahead by June in both vote count and delegates, and then you combine that with the possible impact of a John Edwards endorsement were it to occur, then both sides will be switching their positions on how terrible the super delegate structure is. And if in a competitive battle both sides hate it, there may very well be a strong argument for leaving things just the way they are!
Carl Jeffers is a Seattle-and Los Angeles based columnist, political analyst, radio talk show host and lecturer. E-mail: cjintel@juno.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080216/cm_huffpost/086993 |
Email This Page