The Democrats’ Conundrum

How unexpected. We’re sitting around considering whether the Indiana primary on May 6 will be decisive in this presidential campaign of front loaded primaries.

Voters and party leaders, including those in California, had grown tired of the power and influence of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary and wanted in on the early action. Even those not seeking to displace Iowa and New Hampshire wanted to move up their primaries so that they would be decisive in the nominating process. Too often by the time a state’s primary had arrived, the shape of the presidential campaign had already been profoundly molded, many candidates had already withdrawn, and sometimes the final outcome had already been decided.

As a result, for this 2008 campaign, states started falling all over themselves trying to move their respective party primaries to dates very early in the year. The press of front loading was so great that the Democratic primaries in two states, Michigan and Florida, were essentially stripped of legitimacy because the national party leaders wanted to keep some semblance of order or at least continue to permit Iowa and New Hampshire to lead.

And now? With two major candidates running neck and neck and neither likely to reach the convention with the required number of delegates to assure nomination, albeit with Obama holding a lead in elected delegates and popular vote in approved primaries and caucuses that he is unlikely to relinquish before the convention, the late primaries which many thought would be of no significance have emerged as key battlegrounds. Ohio and Texas might have determined the outcome, had Hillary lost. Pennsylvania then became the focus. But once again Hillary emerged triumphant and with a comfortable margin of victory.

So now attention has turned to Indiana, although North Carolina will also vote on May 6. Obama is expected to win in North Carolina, in part because of its percentage of African-American and affluent voters. Indiana, more like Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states with smaller percentages of black and affluent voters, has become more of the focus. If Hillary wins there she surely will continue with energy and gusto, even if she loses in North Carolina. If she loses in Indiana she will likely continue on but her recent string of victories with consequent bragging rights will have been broken and obviously this will work in favor of Obama and remind people that he remains in the lead.

Where is this all heading? Many continue to feel that the Democratic Party cannot deny the nomination to Barack Obama if he enters the convention with a greater popular vote than Hillary and more elected delegates, leaving Michigan and Florida out of the tabulations. The only way he can lose the nomination at that point is if a significant number of super delegates vote for Hillary presumably on the ground that she is more electable than Obama against McCain. And, the argument is that if the non-elected super delegates do that then many African-American voters, perhaps the most loyal Democratic Party voting bloc, and other fierce supporters of Obama, will be outraged, feel that Obama was denied the nomination because he is black, and will sit on their hands in November resulting in a McCain victory.

It is difficult to counter that argument as that is a very likely outcome if Obama is denied the nomination, no matter what else happens in the remaining Democratic primaries. The trouble, however, is that there are many who feel that chinks in Obama’s armor have begun to show, whether due to Hillary’s efforts, efforts of conservative commentators and others, closer media coverage, or as the result of Obama’s own behavior, and that he is now emerging as a very vulnerable candidate for President.

A commentator on cable news today who presumably has done polling of media coverage of the candidates and those associated with them stated that when it came to Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Obama’s coverage stood at 83% positive, Hillary’s at 53% positive and Bill at only 23% positive. In seeking to explain these percentages, the commentator remarked that the media tend to be drawn to candidates who don’t appear to fit the same old politician mold and who preach unity rather than division. I certainly am one who believes that Obama has been given a relatively free ride in the media until now, with some exceptions.

But the Reverend Wright tapes and Obama’s responses and, more recently, Obama’s comments about bitter voters clinging to religion and guns have gradually exposed him to greater negative press and more critical media questioning, and have shown him to be far more a traditional politician (something I have been contending since the outset) than the idealistic, above the fray candidate dedicated to and capable of uniting red and blue, black, brown and white, conservative, moderate and liberal, that he has sought to present himself as since the outset. His extremely liberal voting record and news stories of his friendly, but not close, relationship with Bill Ayers, former member of the Weather Underground, have also undercut Obama’s image as a moderate.

I didn’t watch the Pennsylvania primary debate in which the ABC moderators asked Obama pointed questions on some of these issues and apparently Obama did not shine, but I did watch both Hillary and him deliver their remarks after the Pennsylvania voting showed Hillary had won. It was not surprising that Hillary was upbeat, energetic and seemed to connect with both those present and the TV cameras. Obama, speaking in Indiana, delivered a lackluster speech, no doubt in part reflecting his defeat as well as his fatigue. But I hadn’t seen him give a speech, as opposed to participate in a debate, in which he looked and sounded off his game. He reached into his playbook to patch together segments of his stump speeches but he seemed on autopilot.

Are the Democrats truly headed for a debacle, first at the National Convention and then at the polls in November? Hard to say. And many of us, me included, can’t help but blame Hillary for all this, perhaps unfairly but probably not. Had Hillary developed a strategy to contest the voting in caucus states and in a few smaller ones that had primaries things might not be where they are today. Given the proportional representation voting that is preventing her from mounting a powerful comeback, she might have been able to prevent Obama from rolling up the totals in delegate counts in those caucus and small primary states if she had merely paid some mind to them. I suspect that Hillary and her staff were seduced by the very myth, her “inevitability,” that they sought to propagate in the belief that it would render any opposition impotent and as a result did not elect to expend very many resources in those states.

Some may complain that, in blaming Hillary for her current situation, I am not giving Obama the credit he is due for having run such an excellent campaign to date. He has indeed excited an incredible number of voters to work for his campaign, support his candidacy with financial contributions in small amounts that are cumulatively staggering, and vote for him in caucuses and primaries in small and large states. There can be no question that his charisma, cool under pressure demeanor, and oratorical skills combined with his message of hope, unity and change have been major factors in his success and current status as frontrunner. Nonetheless, given Hillary’s victories in so many of the large, industrial states that have traditionally been the key to Democratic victory, it would appear that she should have been able to rally enough forces in caucus and small primary states to dent the delegate and electoral advantages Obama has been able to amass in them and be in the lead at this juncture, even putting aside Michigan and Florida.

My apologies for taking you this far in this post without now being in a position to provide a simple solution to the Democratic Party’s current conundrum. Right now it still seems to me that Obama will be the nominee. But he no longer is the magical candidate that he was to many a few months ago. While he is not besting McCain in recent one-on-one polls by any significant margin, Obama is faring no worse than Hillary, so her argument that she is a more formidable candidate against McCain has not been unequivocally established. But, as an older, longtime Democrat, political observer and political scientist, I am concerned that the party nominee may well be the candidate who failed to win the primaries in New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio and, with a legitimate qualification, in Michigan and Florida as well. Will a very high percentage of primary voters who voted for Hillary turn around and support Obama in November? Will he be able to beat McCain? I have my doubts. But, as I noted above, the selection of Hillary as nominee through the actions of super delegates combined with her historical high negatives may doom her candidacy as well.

Stay tuned!⌂

Too Many Missteps, Hillary

Hillary is definitely having troubles of late.

First came the video near the end of March showing that Hillary’s claims of landing under sniper fire in Tuzla, Bosnia in 1996 were simply not true. Her attempted explanation that she had misspoke and had a fuzzy memory given all the experiences she has had during the last decade and a half was simply not credible.

This was closely followed by the disclosure that Maggie Williams, Hillary’s fairly newly appointed campaign manager and long time aide, had sat on the board of Delta Financial Corporation for years, described as “one of the nation’s once-largest and now-bankrupt sub-prime mortgage lenders.”

Just yesterday, April 5, The New York Times reported that Hillary’s repeated remarks during her campaign about “an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee” were being strongly denied by the hospital which has asked Hillary to desist from repeating the story. The Times reports that hospital administrators state that the woman “was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment, and that she was, in fact, insured.”

And today, April 6, 2008, Mark Penn, Hillary’s chief strategist, stepped down from that position with her campaign. In his role as CEO of Burson-Marsteller, an international lobbying and public relations firm, Penn had recently met with the Colombian ambassador. Colombia had hired Penn’s firm to represent it in efforts to obtain a bilateral trade treaty with the United States that Hillary apparently opposes.

These missteps are seriously undermining Hillary’s campaign. Her advantage over Obama in Pennsylvania seems to be slipping, not surprisingly as Obama is able to focus his energies and resources there, and these mistakes make Hillary appear, at best, sloppy and not in effective control of her campaign and, at worst, a prevaricator. And all this is occurring against the backdrop of growing anxiety among Democrats, both leaders and rank and file, that the Democratic campaign is going on far too long and will diminish the prospects for victory in November. As the current underdog trying to convince Democrats and others that despite her position she deserves the nomination and is best suited to lead the country, Hillary’s candidacy is being severely tested if not torpedoed by these recent developments.

While I am among those concerned by the drawn out Democratic Party process, and do not see any basis for suggesting that Obama withdraw in favor of Hillary, I am not yet ready to call upon Hillary to withdraw. [I realize there are many out there looking to me to provide the right counsel to the party. ;-) ] If she wins in Pennsylvania, she will claim that the victory justifies her in continuing the campaign and I would concur. If she loses, she should concede. But if Hillary can’t avoid more missteps like those in recent weeks, her candidacy will likely be undone not by the electorate but by her own hand.⌂

The Dodgers’ 50th Anniversary in Los Angeles: At Best Bittersweet

The Los Angeles Dodgers just celebrated their 50^th anniversary in Los Angeles with a special event at Dodger Stadium on opening day, the surprise appearance before the game of many Dodger greats of the past 50 years. Los Angeles Times columnist Bill Plaschke wrote a moving column on the celebration, “Past becomes a present to Dodgers fans,” in the April 1, 2008 edition. I grew up in Brooklyn, New York and was a fervent Dodger fan before their departure in 1958. My email to Bill Plaschke follows:

Dear Bill,

I read your column “Past becomes a present to Dodgers fans” in yesterday’s (April 1, 2008) Los Angeles Times with a heavy heart. At the same time that I appreciated your description of the ceremony at Dodger Stadium and your commentary about the old Dodgers and the reception they received, I felt a profound sadness.

I just turned 65 years old. I was born in Brooklyn in 1943 and grew up a devoted Brooklyn Dodgers fan. There will only be one group that carries the title “Boys of Summer” for me, and they were the Dodgers of the 1950’s. Their departure from Brooklyn in 1958 broke my heart and those of so many other Brooklynites. I migrated to Southern California in 1969 and have lived here ever since, now well more than half my life, and while I grew to root for the Dodgers here they have never come close to measuring up to my Dodgers.

When you wrote of Duke Snider’s appearance in center field at the ceremony, my eyes teared and I could only think of him as The Duke of Flatbush and nowhere else. While we in Brooklyn knew that Duke hailed from San Diego, he belonged to us, in Brooklyn. Perhaps Mays and Mantle were superior all-around players but even if they were, and I would never concede that, Duke was ours and in our eyes was the best of the three. But those Dodgers were a team and none truly stood out above and beyond the others. Whether it was Gil Hodges and his legendary strength, Carl Furillo with his bullet throws, Jackie Robinson with all that he represented, Pee Wee Reese, the captain, Roy Campanella, an anchor for so long, Joe Black for one remarkable season, Billy Cox, Preacher Roe, Junior Gilliam, Don Newcombe or, of course, Carl Erskine with that incredible overhand delivery, these were remarkable players who constituted a remarkable team. How could anyone forget the batting line up, although it began to change as the decade passed. Duke batting third, Jackie batting clean up, and then what? Campy, Hodges, Furillo or in some order like that? Carl Furillo, who won a batting championship, batting seventh? What consistent hitters. What power hitters. How in the world could we have lost to the Yankees so often?!!

And then there was Vin Scully who, unbeknownst to himself, welcomed me to Los Angeles in 1969 as I drove across the desert from Needles on the last day of my travels across the country. I knew no one here and to hear his voice was comforting, as it remains to so many generations of baseball fans. He was part of the Red Barber, Vin Scully, Connie Desmond trio who broadcast Dodger games in the early 1950’s and as a young boy I loved listening to all three.

I do not begrudge Los Angelenos celebrating the 50^th anniversary of the Dodgers’ arrival here, although I have never entirely forgiven Walter O’Malley for taking our Dodgers from our midst or the Los Angeles political figures from luring him here. As an adult, I’ve come to better appreciate his efforts to build a stadium in Brooklyn and the ways in which Robert Moses thwarted those attempts. But if the Dodgers play a major part in bringing the people of Los Angeles together, imagine how central they were to the identity of the people of Brooklyn. The Bronx had the Yankees. Manhattan, or at least the residential parts, had the Giants. The Dodgers were ours, and then they were gone.

You wrote “At Monday’s opening day, Los Angeles was 56,000 Dodgers lovers with peanuts in their throats and Cracker Jack in their memories.” As I read your words, what came to my mind were flashes of Pee Wee Reese and Jackie Robinson taking leads off second and first, and then pulling off another double steal; Duke Snider hitting a fastball over the scoreboard on that high right field wall into Flatbush Avenue; Carl Furillo throwing out a base runner at third who tried to stretch a double into a triple; Gil Hodges breaking up a fight; Roy Campanella walking to the mound to reassure a nervous pitcher; and so many other memories of baseball at Ebbets Field.

So for me, celebrating the Dodgers’ 50^th anniversary in Southern California is at best bittersweet. I’m glad the McCourts recognize the importance of history but Dodgers’ history goes back way before 1958. And I know I’m not the only transplanted Brooklynite here in Los Angeles who felt heartache yesterday. At least The Duke wore a Brooklyn jersey.

Thanks, Bill, for your moving writing.

Regards,

Donald Newman

Say What? Doublespeak or Worse from the Presidential Candidates

1. Obama and Long Movies

After Obama-supporter Senator Pat Leahy called upon Hillary Clinton to end her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination on the ground that she cannot win and her continued efforts will damage the party’s chances in November, Hillary responded forcefully by claiming that his and others’ calls amounted to denying Democrats in the remaining primary states a chance to express themselves at the ballot box. On Saturday, March 29, 2008, Barack Obama distanced himself from Leahy’s position, saying that Clinton should stay in the race “as long as she wants,” while urging that the party unite behind a candidate after the primaries have concluded.

But on the previous day, March 28, Obama, at a rally in Pittsburgh, seemed to be strongly suggesting that Hillary exit the race, by describing the campaign as “a good movie that lasted about a half an hour too long.”

Surely Obama would like the race to end and Hillary to withdraw. No one can blame him for that. In fact, many of us increasingly fear that the fight between Clinton and Obama has turned nasty and that its continuation will diminish, not strengthen, the prospects for a Democratic victory in November. But Obama also knows that to call for Hillary to withdraw despite the outstanding primaries, the closeness of the race, and the absence of a resolution to the Florida and Michigan fiascos, makes him look like a competitor trying to press his opponent to concede before the voting has stopped and he has truly won the campaign. In such circumstances, doublespeak works wonders and Obama has increasingly shown himself adept at it.

2. Hillary and Gun Fire

Is it only a momentary flap or has Hillary seriously shot herself in the foot, so to speak, with her misstatements about her trip in 1996 to Tuzla, Bosnia where she claimed she landed under sniper fire and, instead of participating in a greeting ceremony at the airport, she and others ran with their heads down to waiting vehicles. CBS film of the event shows Clinton and daughter Chelsea being greeted by a little girl on the tarmac who kissed Clinton on the cheek with no sniper fire or running for cover anywhere in evidence.

Hillary is not the first political candidate to misstate the truth, whether purposefully or, as she claims, through a faulty memory. But this misstep has occurred at a particularly crucial point in time. The focus had been almost exclusively on Obama’s statements about the Reverend Wright, statements that had raised serious questions about Obama’s truthfulness. Clinton’s misstatement is even more glaring, as there is video that clearly shows her landing in Tuzla. And I for one will never accept that this was all a function of fuzzy memory. You don’t forget being exposed to sniper fire or, more to the point, you don’t mistakenly remember it when it never occurred. I would be willing to accept the fuzzy memory explanation if such an incident had occurred to Clinton elsewhere. But I’ve yet to read of a trip Hillary made where she was in fact greeted by sniper fire, at least the kind that comes out of guns rather than adversaries’ mouths.

3. Obama and Reverend Wright

On “The View,” an ABC television program featuring a group of female commentators, that aired this last Friday, March 28, 2008, Barack Obama said: "Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church."

So, after remaining a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ for approximately 20 years during which time Reverend Wright made the incendiary remarks shown in often aired videos, Obama tells us now that had Wright not retired, which he apparently did a month ago, he “wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church.” Does this even mean Obama would have left the church had Wright remained as the active pastor or that Obama might well have remained but with feelings of discomfort? More doublespeak?

Most importantly, how convenient now to tell us of his lack of comfort while there appears no evidence he felt any during the years Wright was pastor and Obama belonged to the church. As to Obama’s claims that he was not present during Wright’s incendiary statements, let’s just say that it begs credulity to believe that Obama was unaware of Wright’s views and statements on the topics addressed in the videos throughout the 20 year period.

Obama’s efforts to distance himself from Reverend Wright’s incendiary statements and to even proclaim his own ignorance of them, while at the same time explaining and justifying his longstanding and very close relationship with Wright and even Wright's anger and remarks, don’t work for me. I see them as an admittedly skilled tap dance by a very talented political player. I have become increasingly cynical about Obama’s attempt to market himself as someone above politics and different from other politicians in the ways they seek office. Rather, this evidences even more clearly Obama’s calculated efforts over the years to build a coalition of constituents and supporters who frequently hold diverse and conflicting views by presenting himself somewhat differently to different groups. And that is precisely what all politicians do. I’d respect Obama more were he not so hypocritical in this endeavor. But, despite my misgivings, Democratic voters in recent polls seem to have accepted Obama’s explanations and his Philadelphia address and continue to support him in the nominating process. Nonetheless, I think the Wright episode will seriously weaken his candidacy in November, assuming he wins the nomination.

4. McCain, Lieberman and Al Qaeda

Will Joseph Lieberman be a vice-presidential candidate again in 2008? I ask that sarcastically but his constant appearances with John McCain have to make you wonder! To be sure, I am disappointed in Lieberman. I didn’t favor dumping him as the Democratic nominee for re-election to the Senate in Connecticut because of his position on the Iraq War but I must confess that now I feel otherwise.

In any case, while some of McCain’s supporters now claim that his misstatement in Jordan about Iran’s relationship with Al Qaeda was not incorrect, his remark was inaccurate and a gaffe and underscored the concerns many, including I, have about McCain’s ability to provide new, inspired and inspiring leadership to America.

As reported on March 18, 2008, in “The Trail,” a daily diary of the presidential campaign appearing in The Washington Post, “McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives ‘taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.’ Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was ‘common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate.’ A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: ‘I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.’”

We have to hope that Lieberman is not emerging as McCain’s Dick Cheney and that McCain is not morphing into but a variant of George W. Bush.⌂

Reflections on Obama's Philadelphia Speech

I viewed significant excerpts last night on television of Obama’s speech on race that he delivered in Philadelphia. I didn’t watch the entire speech but I did read the entire text. Obviously people have reacted in differing ways to Obama’s speech. It did not move or inspire me.

First off, I admit I’ve grown partisan enough in favor of Hillary (despite her and Bill’s obvious flaws), negative enough toward MsNBC, and bored enough toward CNN, that I have found myself watching FoxNews’ conservative commentators more often not because I agree with them on most issues but because I think the coverage tends to be more extensive and the commentary more direct.

I read The New York Times’ editorial this morning that praises Obama to the hilt (“Mr. Obama’s Profile in Courage”). Not my impression. Dick Morris, someone I tend to loathe, remarked last night that, in his view, the reason Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in the first place and stayed there was because, as a black young man originally from Hawaii finding himself in Chicago, that church allowed him entrée into the black community, something important to him given his political aspirations. I tend to agree. In other words, Obama’s attempt to separate religion and his entirely personal spiritual relationship with Wright from Wright’s political views and style is highly questionable. Wright may well have provided Obama and his family with meaningful religious guidance but Obama’s ongoing association with the church and Wright had a political component as well. I find Obama’s, and The Times’, claims to the contrary to be disingenuous.

And all this talk about Obama’s honesty in his speech, candor in discussing race relations, baring his soul, and drawing a distinction between religion and politics, shouldn’t hide the fact that this speech was a most basic example of political damage control. Frankly, I was particularly annoyed and upset by Obama’s attempt to draw parallels and moral equivalency between Wright’s incendiary language and Ferraro’s comment about the significance of Obama’s race in his political success this year, and then between Wright’s very public, incendiary diatribes and Obama’s own white grandmother’s private admissions to being fearful of black men on the street (something not at all necessarily evidencing racism or paranoia) and making some racial stereotypes that made Obama cringe but that he failed to identify. But, no, The New York Times didn’t call him to task for that or his continuing failure to explain why he remained silent and retained his pastor on one of his advisory panels in the face of his pastor’s history of incendiary political statements and until this political firestorm emerged.

Obama is a very talented speaker, although I wasn’t particularly moved by his delivery last night. And he isn’t the first and won’t be the last to comment about America’s history of racism, race relations and our need to resolve that significant issue. While I can’t quite match Senator Lloyd Bentsen because I didn’t personally know Lincoln, FDR or Kennedy, to whom The Times compared Obama, I knew them sufficiently by their words and courage (Lincoln), words and leadership (FDR) and words and having come to age during Camelot (Kennedy) to say that Obama is no Lincoln, FDR or even Kennedy. Liberals refuse to see him as the astute and articulate politician that he is. They want to elevate him to a stature above that of politician in large part because that fits their political agendas. Obama, whether seen in the context of his relationship (only last Friday admitted, by Obama, to have been far broader than earlier acknowledged) with Rezko, or in his votes of ‘present’ in the Illinois legislature, or in his concessions to business interests when he introduced a bill to protect residents against nuclear radiation, or in his cautious approach to Iraq once he stepped on the national stage, is nothing more or less than a politician, not a “movement” or some transcendent figure. Yes he identified some of the grievances of black and white in his speech last night. But it’s not as if that hasn’t been done before. And what are his solutions? What are his courageous choices? He offered nothing but generalized bromides.

To be clear, I do not believe that Obama harbors Wright’s incendiary views about whites or America. But I also don’t see Obama as the vanguard of a new, enlightened social movement. I see him as another politician, like Hillary, Edwards, McCain and others, albeit with his own political positions and style. I don’t condemn him for that. But I am repelled by the efforts of many to put him on a pedestal. He and his campaign managers felt that any likelihood of success in this campaign meant that he could not be seen as a black candidate, let alone as the candidate of the black community. His triumphant remarks after primary wins alluded to race (e.g., they thought “it” couldn’t be done) without mentioning it. But now, faced by this political firestorm, he has brought race front and center while continuing to emphasize “unity” as his answer to all problems, including race. As I’ve noted previously, he is a master at using buzzwords in his political speeches and did so again yesterday. While I recognize that one cannot separate Wright’s race from his incendiary political statements, Wright’s positions, not his race, are what has offended many, and Obama’s silence, not his race, has raised questions about his courage and judgment.

I recall when Bill Clinton, now reviled by some blacks, sought to find some balance on the affirmative action issue during his presidency. As I admittedly vaguely recall, he acknowledged the excesses of as well as the value in affirmative action programs (and took flack from liberals for acknowledging that there could be any excesses). I’m not suggesting that Clinton was a great president or great man for having done so. But it points out that it isn’t as if no other American until yesterday has sought to address the problems of race in this country and seek to find a middle ground. Clinton was trying to find a middle approach to a hot button issue tied to the history of race in America.

Obama’s speech would have been more impressive had it been delivered in different circumstances. It wasn’t given “voluntarily” at a time when he didn’t have to address the volatile and divisive issue of race but chose to do so. It was given to save his political bacon. We’ll see whether it succeeds in that respect. But he is still not my candidate of choice.⌂

Super Delegates Need to Make Up Their Own Minds

You may or may not like the fact that Democrats count among the delegates to their national presidential nominating convention a considerable number of super delegates. There are 795 super delegates (not including Florida and Michigan), a total of 4048 delegates, with 2025 required to win. Hence, the total number of super delegates constitutes roughly 40% of the votes needed to secure the nomination. (See http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ for extremely useful data on the contest.)

Not surprisingly, Obama’s campaign asserts that super delegates should vote to ratify or reflect the popular vote in primaries and caucuses in the super delegates’ respective states and congressional districts. Since Obama won more states than Hillary and leads in the overall popular vote such a position is not surprising. It serves his self-interest. It also sounds more “democratic.” Furthermore, just such “logic” has provided political cover for some African-American and other super delegates, John Lewis immediately comes to mind, to disavow their previous commitments to support Hillary Clinton and pledge their support to Barack Obama. Doug Wilder, mayor of Richmond and former governor of Virginia, apparently has predicted riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of super delegates. But the contention that super delegates should or are obligated to vote pursuant to the popular vote in their states or districts is, in my view, meritless.

If super delegates are supposed to merely reflect the outcome of primary elections and caucuses in their states or districts, why have them in the first place? To be sure, there are those who oppose having super delegates and I respect that position. But the Democrats chose to have super delegates, just as they chose to apportion delegates by proportional representation rather than winner take all in their primaries and caucuses. Perhaps one or both of these decisions were in error. But having been made, it doesn’t seem fair or right or even smart to change these decisions now. True that having super delegates vote lockstep with the outcomes of voting in their states would not be eliminating super delegates, but it would essentially eliminate them by making them merely pawns of the voters rather than what they were intended to be.

Who are the super delegates? The Democratic Party’s Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, available on the internet, describes the positions held by the super delegates. These include all Democratic state governors, members of Congress, members of the Democratic National Committee, former Presidents, Vice Presidents, Speakers of the House, leaders of the Senate and House, and chairs of the DNC. These are unpledged delegates. (Rule 9.A.) It would appear that the Democrats decided to include these unpledged party leaders and former leaders among voting delegates at their national conventions beginning in the 1980’s to balance the impact of party activists who tend to dominate primaries and caucuses by allowing party ‘elders’ to bring their individual and collective wisdom to bear on the selection of the Democratic Party standard bearer.

As for the obligation of pledged delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses to actually vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged at the convention on the first or subsequent ballots, the Democratic rules are most interesting. Rule 12.J. provides: “Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

So, even pledged delegates are not required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged at the convention, even on the first ballot let alone on any subsequent ballots. And when one thinks about this dispassionately, it makes sense. Does it make sense to require delegates pledged to John Edwards or other candidates who long ago withdrew from the contest to vote for those candidates until released by the candidates even on a first ballot, let alone beyond that? No. What if the leading candidate suddenly lost favor among Democrats perhaps because of late breaking disclosures about him but refused to withdraw from the race? Imagine, for example, if Eliot Spitzer had been a candidate this year and despite the late breaking news of his visits with prostitutes remained in the lead by the end of the primaries and caucuses? Would the logic currently being offered about the role of super delegates or even obligations among pledged delegates make sense? Not in my view. Then, too, keep in mind that some states permitted Republicans to cross over and independents to vote in the Democratic primaries or caucuses, some of whom may have voted to aid the Republicans or simply without regard to assuring the election of a Democrat in November. That is another reason for rejecting the argument that super delegates must follow the popular vote in making their own judgment. (Interestingly enough, according to the media, the Obama campaign is eagerly seeking to register Republicans and independents as Democrats for the Pennsylvania primary which is a closed primary.)

But even absent any of these more dramatic scenarios, it simply does not make sense that super delegates should forego casting their votes based upon their own best judgment and simply vote to ratify or reflect the popular vote in their states or districts. To be sure, their own best judgment may be to support the candidate who won the popular vote perhaps because they believe he or she is the best candidate or that rejecting the popular vote will alienate those who voted and result in defeat for the nominated candidate. Using their own best judgment does not mean remaining committed to a candidate whom they informally agreed to support a year before just to show their loyalty or reap personal political benefit. It means stepping back and evaluating the overall political situation, bringing to bear their life experiences in and outside the political arena, and then exercising their discretion to decide how best to cast their votes at the convention to further the interests of the party and, even more so, the country in the upcoming national election.⌂

Will Pennsylvania Be Decisive?

Things are getting nasty, or nastier, out there on the hustings. Hillary’s chief spokesman comparing Obama to Ken Starr. A Pulitzer prize winning Obama foreign policy advisor (now a former advisor) calling Hillary a “monster.” Where are we headed? And at what cost?

I have been holding my breath, and my pen, for a number of weeks awaiting the outcome of the Ohio and Texas primary elections. Hillary had to win the popular vote in both primaries to truly stay alive. Despite pollsters predicting that she would fail to do so, she won both primaries and Rhode Island’s too, taking three of the four contests held on March 4, 2008. She still trails Obama in the delegate count, as well as in the number of primaries and caucuses won and the total popular vote among Democratic voters, but she is able to claim that she has won in most of the big, industrial states, not even counting Florida and Michigan. While there are two small contests, Wyoming’s caucuses that Obama just won and the Mississippi primary on March 11, along the way, April 22 looms as the date of the next big watershed event, the Pennsylvania primary. But will it be decisive and what may occur between now and then?

It seems reasonable to believe that almost all Democratic leaders, Bill Clinton being one notable exception, hoped that Hillary would not win both Ohio and Texas. I suspect even many of those who strongly support her secretly hoped that she would lose one of the races and then, after some further posturing, bow out of the campaign. But that didn’t happen. Her victories, albeit narrow especially in Texas where she appears to have even lost the overall delegate count because of that state’s odd arrangement of caucus voting following the popular vote, definitely buoyed up her campaign and gave her bragging rights when it comes to big states. Hillary supporters feel that, despite Obama’s appeal to independents and his efforts to bring together blue and red Americans, most of the smaller traditionally red states in which he has easily won primaries and caucuses will vote Republican in the fall. As such, they tend to discount these victories. Obama supporters assert that even if Hillary won victories in key Democratic states such as New York, New Jersey and California, Obama performed well and that either Democrat is likely to carry them in the fall. As such, they tend to discount these victories. What would we do without the spinmeisters, not that I am not guilty of being one at times!

The outcomes on March 4 certainly mean that Hillary will continue to vigorously pursue the Democratic Party nomination and that the race between her and Obama will grow even more strident. At this point, many feel that Hillary is more likely than Obama to win the popular vote in the Pennsylvania primary. It is a northeastern industrial state and parallels have also been drawn between it and Ohio in terms of the demographics of the electorate. The state’s governor is a strong Hillary supporter as well. Her supporters believe that her victory there should count considerably in her pursuit of the nomination in light of her successes in the other large industrial states.

At the same time, because Hillary is in second place by most measures today, or at a minimum is seen as being in second place, a loss by her of the popular vote in Pennsylvania could indeed be decisive in ending her run for the nomination. The pressures on her to concede at that point would be enormous, including by many Hillary supporters. Despite arguments that it shows the strength of our democratic system, I suspect that most Democrats believe that a hotly contested national convention would be the death knell for Democratic prospects in the fall and they wish to avoid it.

But a loss by Obama of the popular vote in the Pennsylvania primary will certainly not lead him to drop out of the race nor would the pressures on him to do so come close to those that would befall Hillary if she were to lose. He is the front runner and will surely be so going into and probably even in the aftermath of the Pennsylvania primary. Hence, a Hillary victory in Pennsylvania may well mean a brokered Democratic national convention with all that portends. This is not to completely rule out the possibility that Obama might withdraw from the race before the convention were he to lose Pennsylvania (and subsequent primaries), but at this point any withdrawal regardless of the outcomes of upcoming primaries appears extremely remote. Obama’s astonishing fund raising numbers, among other indicators, attest to the strength of his support.

Then, too, despite the enormous pressures that would be brought to bear on Hillary if she were to lose the Pennsylvania popular vote, it isn’t at all clear that she would in fact bow out of the race. She might simply refuse, especially if she loses the vote by a hair, and seek to await verdicts in May primaries in Indiana, Oregon, North Carolina and Puerto Rico, among others. She could even decide to remain in the race through the national convention. Many have written of the Clintons’ resolve. But I suspect that if she loses Pennsylvania’s popular vote she will not make it to the convention, even if she hangs on for later primaries.

How have the Democrats gotten themselves into this fine mess? Clearly few anticipated Obama’s emergence as an incredibly popular, well organized, attractive, charismatic candidate. I certainly did not. More importantly, Hillary and her strategists didn’t either. Her performances in caucuses demonstrate that her campaign did not organize well in those states and apparently felt that her victories by super-Tuesday would be enough to wrap up the nomination.

But another “cause” of the present situation is the proportional representation voting system mandated for Democratic primaries by the national Party. By forbidding winner-take-all contests, the Democrats practically ensured gridlock in the case of two equally or almost equally matched candidates. A proportional representation voting system may be more “democratic” in theory than a winner-take-all voting system but historically it often spawns instability and weak governance. In national elections to Congress, the United States uses a so-called single member constituency voting system. This kind of system tends to under represent minority factions (i.e., minority factions in terms of political views, not necessarily in terms of ethnic groups) but also tends to lead to more decisive elections and more stable governance. In this instance, the Democratic nominating campaign voting system has ensured that, between Hillary and Obama, even the candidate who has lost the popular vote in a primary has still walked away with a considerable number of delegates.

Unfortunately, the likelihood that the campaign will grow even nastier than it has is great. There is much at stake for both candidates. The image Obama has sought to convey of a candidate committed to not turning negative on his opponent may constrain him and his campaign a bit, if only to attempt to deny Hillary the argument that Obama is ultimately like all other politicians, including her. But a candidate’s negative advertising is often seen by the candidate, strategists and supporters as merely truth telling with an edge.

It would appear that there is ever more concern among Democrats that this increasingly contentious contest between Hillary and Obama will lead to more and more bloodletting and seriously undermine the prospects for their party’s victory in the fall. Might that concern actually affect the voting pattern in the Pennsylvania and subsequent primaries? Specifically, will some voters who might otherwise vote for Hillary defect to Obama not because they favor him more but because they want an end to this race? I think some feared that might occur on March 4, but even if some voters determined their vote with that in mind, enough remained faithful to Clinton that she prevailed. We shall see how things develop as the weeks unfold.⌂