There'll be "Race Riots" in The Streets?

And there you have it. The mother of all race cards. The thing that so many Democrats have quietly feared but haven't actually voiced. But one conservative pundit, Michelle Bernard, has been the only talking-head so far who's had either the bravado or the stupidity -- I'm not exactly sure which -- to actually say it out loud.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews Monday night, Bernard was part of a roundtable group discussing the Democratic primary battle between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama. Near the program's end the conversation turned to the likelihood that Obama will end up with a majority of delegates Tuesday, and what impact that would have on the remaining unpledged superdelegates in closing out this rancorous nomination process. Bernard boldy predicted: "Hillary Clinton's gonna become the Ron Paul of the Democratic Party. There is no way the superdelegates can take this away from Barack Obama. There will be race riots in the street if he wins enough superdelegates..." And with that supremely irresponsible, reckless, race-baiting comment she was abruptly cut-off by an incredulous Matthews as he closed the show.

Bernard, president of the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative women's group founded in 1992 has, for some reason, become as ubiquitous on MSNBC as Matthews himself. She appears almost nightly on Hardball, and can also be found on the cable network's other political programs. First of all, she's a conservative, but is rarely if ever introduced as one. Next, she consistently showers Obama was such effusive on-air praise and support that one has to wonder whether or not there's some ulterior motive in play. Bernard's no dummy. She studied philosophy and political science at Howard University and received her law degree from Georgetown. It's at least fair to ask if Bernard's secret mission, suspected of so many other right-wingers in the media, is to promote Obama so feverishly because they believe they'd have a better chance of defeating him in November rather than Clinton?

But let's get back to the main issue here. The issue of Bernard's incredible race-baiting declaration. The whole primary process has driven both Democrats and Republicans mad. Many have done and said things that make absolutely no sense, that is of course unless race is the underlying factor. Let's take the whole superdelegate issue, for example. As every student of politics knows, the superdelegate system was implemented 25 years ago to give party leaders and officials the power to decide the election if no candidate obtains the required minimum delegates; to choose a nominee if they felt that the people were sending an unelectable candidate into the general election. This was prompted by the weak campaigns of George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1980. The responsibility of this elite group would be to ultimately decide, in extremely close elections exactly like the current Obama/Clinton battle in which neither candidate will reach the required 2209 pledged delegates necessary to win the nomination, who gets to represent the party in November. Dems da rules, kids. I ain't makin' this stuff up.

But something very strange has happened in 2008. People are forgetting the rules. People are forgetting why superdelegates exist. People are saying that Obama should get the nomination simply because, on the last day of primaries, June 3rd, he'll have more delegates than Clinton. Wouldn't life be grand if it were that simple. If all a candidate needed was "the most" delegates we wouldn't have a 2209 minimum; we wouldn't need or have superdelegates. We would simply just play out all the primaries and award the prize to the one who leads the delegate count at the end. No need to assess momentum, popular vote, overall electability or anything else.

Now, I'm going to go out on a very big limb here and say that race is at the root of this 2008 willful forgetfulness. That the rules are being overlooked because Obama is black. Because Democrats, as a general rule, are so insanely obsessed with being politically-correct that they cannot stomach the thought of how they'd be perceived within the black community if Obama's anticipated coronation were to be overturned. That yes, in the incendiary words of Bernard, there might even be...ssshhhh...get closer, I don't want to say this too loudly..."race riots in the streets" if this happened. So as a result, we have a legion of Democrats, Obama supporters, party officials and pundits declaring for months now that "it's over" and that Clinton should exit and let Obama assume what's rightfully his....rather than go about the process as the party intended 25 years ago when it created the superdelegate system.

Now I know the above supposition will not make me popular. In fact, some might even say I'm crazy....maybe even call me a racist for it. But ya know what's really crazy? It's the ridiculous notion that the superdelegate system wouldn't be operating as the party leaders planned had this year's tight battle been between two white men such as Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Would we be pounding the table in absolute, unconditional support for Dodd if perhaps he led Biden by 150 delegates at the end of the primaries, but well short of the 2209 minimum? Would all the media's talking heads be saying... "Dodd's ahead by 150 delegates...how could the superdelegates overturn the will of the people...that's unjust!" Would party officials and the media be rushing to get Biden out of the race early so that the "rightful nominee," Dodd, could declare victory? Hell no. There'd be all sorts of back-room analyzing and maneuvering to decide which of these old white guys would be best to send into the general election against the other side's old white guy. And that would be it. Just as the party planned it 25 years ago. And there'd be no rioting in the streets. Unless of course, had Dodd lost, the Connecticut Starbucks crowd took to the streets and started pelting the police with their grande double-decaf whipped low-fat mocha lattes.

Will superdelegates abdicate their ultimate responsibility and send into the general election someone who they might feel is not the best, most electable candidate because they fear the repercussions of the black community and the PC police? Will Democrats simply close their eyes, cross their fingers and hope for the best this November? Is losing in November more palatable perhaps than being labeled a racist, who overturned the "will of the people" or who may have even caused...race riots?

The simple truth is, Hillary Clinton, for all her warts and unpopularity, has certainly given superdelegates a fairly compelling narrative. Technically, she leads in popular vote; she has won most of the big, core blue states; has captured the critical Democratic base of white working class, women, seniors, Hispanics and Catholics; and, since March 1, has racked up more delegates and popular votes than Obama. Now before the Obamacans start frothing at the mouth, I'm not saying that these facts should make her, not Obama, the nominee. I'm not saying it should materially change anything. What I am saying though, is that these factors should rightfully give pause to the superdelegates, and the media, so that the process, and both candidates, can be fully flushed out and vetted before anyone is coronated. That we should at least let the system work as the party leaders planned 25 years ago before we have a rabid chorus of "quit" from everyone. Again, would all this be happening if the names were Dodd and Biden instead of Clinton and Obama? I suspect not. And that's a damned shame.

Comments

[Hollyse]

Thanks, Andy, for standing out on a limb! Race riots... shhhhhhh... have increased coffee sales especaially with conversational rioting happening right now in the back rooms of coffee houses. We must be careful or the thought police will come after us. The reality of martial law may also be the hand holding cousin for Bush/Cheney to remain in office. After all, what country wants to change presidency during wartime? A means to an end for Hillary's high end IOU campaign debts could be a drop in the bucket for this administration to pay off Hillary's debt, a compromise for Bush and current administration to remain seated indefinetely. With vacancies drawing nearer to supreme court nominations why can't Bush appoint Hillary for a seat on the bench? Politicians have been attending a course in Bipartisan Comradery 101 so there's a good possibility Bush may commit this logic as appeasement to the hungry wolves and wolverines placing her as US Supreme Court Judge. Obama, in my judgement, will never take on Hillary as VP. He's had to deal with taking her on with campaigning so why would he want to have to work with her always campaigning to remain in office as president? And then there's Bill Clinton He's been playing the number 12 on lottery tickets for years, that's being in office an additional 4 years after his first 8 years. Obama doesn't need a pastor for that 'spirituality campaigning' reality.

[Maanu]

If you had been observing this election with anything resembling a open mind and a critical eye, you wouldn't have written this article the same way.

[RoloTomassi]

Ostroy fails to include a very big factor in all of this, in fact two major factors:

1) The reaction to the superdelegate rules has more to do with the 2000 election than any of the issues he raised in his article; electing to not even mention that factor and then speak to the spin-claim that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote is a poor attempt at a shell game.

2) Who is it that looks at the current system and doesn't wonder if there isn't a better way to handle the superdelegate issue? Since the superdelegate rules haven't been in play like this before, it's hardly surprising that most democrats would take pause and question the entire approach to superdelegates.

Sorry, but the intent inherent in this article is quite clear; Ostroy is attempting to make a case for Clinton, and doesn't hesitate to muddy the water to that end.

Mr. Ostroy, the false apologies that reside in your text do not negate its overall sophistry.

[Waitaminute]

This situation with Fla and Michigan remind me of some of my grandsons basketball games. The referees tell the players, if you dunk the ball in warmup, you will get a technical file and have 3 points awarded to the other team. No one complain at the time, because these are the rules. At the end of the game, the team that dunked the ball lost by 2 points. Now they fight, because, IF the refs hadn't penalized and taken points from them, they would have won and it should be given to them. Thats the level Hillary and her supporters are on. Junior high school.

[navalflightofficer]

I think this is the logic and rational analysis that has been lacking for months.
I thought I had stopped talking to the TV until this morning, when again the media was glorifying the fact that Senator Obama had reached that "magical number" of the "majority" of "pledged" delegates. Please forgive my excessive use of quotation marks!
What kind of real mark is that? It means nothing. The concept of the Super Delegates was TO overturn the allusive will of the people.
Thanks for posting some sanity. It will be met with scorn and derision I'm sure.

[Waitaminute]

I see Andy Ostroy is counting Michigan and Florida. I wonder since Andy ask the question, would we be having this arqument if both candidates were were white (Dodd and Biden). Well Andy, why do you want to break the rule and include Fla and Michigan, when all of the candidate agreed that they would not count. Is this great contradiction with you trumpeting the way the superdelegates were meant to be used, while you ignore the agreement that Fla and Mich want count, have anything to do with the fact Obama is black?

[simmern4u]

Andy if you had an ounce of a brain you would know Barack Obama is actually winning the nomination process as set up by the democratic party. He is winning by the rules and somehow you decide to side with the white woman, ex-first lady, and the former president wife who insist on rewriting the rules after the process started. The base that you site that Hillary is winning is great, but equally the base that Obama is winning is also great. So Hillary actually do not have a serious arguement there, nor do you. Without either base it would be hard for either to achieve victory in November if they fail to come together as democrats. I can go on and on like you did in writing this bull shit but I want. Get you head out of your azz and tell the truth. The popular vote metric is a bogus measure, just ask the caucus states that did not report a popular vote. And keep in mind this is a primary not a general election that somehow you chose to make this arguement all about. The DNC will punish MI and FL and that is what is required when you break the rules. Those beauty contest disenfranchised many voters who did not vote or voted in another way to make the impact of their vote more important, like voting in the republican election. So, forget about it. This election will not be stolen this time, this year.

[comatoast]

Attacking Michelle Bernard???? Are there no depths to which you quixotic Clinton people will not stoop?

[MsLiz]

Michelle Bernard is intelligent and insightful. I have heard her described as "on the right" and she calls her self "center-right" but I haven't seen any indication that her comments are disingenuous. It doesn't mean that she is a Republican, or is a Trojan Horse supporting Obama.

I read what Ostroy was saying, but I recognized too many familiar Clinton talking points without responses to the rebuttals.

If we disregard Obama's half-African blood line, we still have a candidate who is likely to reshape the Democratic Party for a generation by bringing in young enthusiastic voters. The older voters who support Clinton don't have the shelf life to sustain the party. The superdelegates are considering the down ticket effects of Obama's candidacy. Not only will African-Americans be offended if he does not get the nomination, so will all the rest of us who see Obama as a vastly superior candidate to Clinton.

Clinton is not a sure winner in November. Her negative ratings have been increasing (Must be getting close to 50% of the electorate). The anti-war vote will have no place to go (shades of 1968). Then there are all the women Bill has "not had sexual relations" with since 2000 but the Republicans have files on, and all of the money Bill has made from suspicious sources, and the pending Peter Paul fraud case. Don't forget the pardons, I'm sure the RNC hasn't.

[pkohan]

"Technically, she leads in popular vote..."

What a canard!

It was the Clintronistas who controlled the DNC Rules Committee when these rules were set in place. It was Terry McAuliffe who faced off against Carl Levin about Michigan moving up its primary. There weren't Obama loyalists on the committee at the time these rules were made.

The rules have worked against Clinton - whose acolytes developed these same rules - so now she wants to create revisionist history.

She campaigned in both Michigan and Florida only after it was apparent she wasn't the darling of the electorate - she wasn't inevitable. She considers the Democratic candidates who didn't campaign in these primaries to be foolish for obeying the rules her people set up... and she wants the spoils for having the audaciousness to break those rules!!!

The transparency in her duplicity is shocking. That we as Democrats would wish this woman to hold high office after this manipulation is completely unacceptable.

ANY REPORTER with any guts would ask why the very same DNC operatives who pressed for these rule changes and punished Florida and Michigan would be so willing to switch their opinions just because the electoral realities don't favor their candidate of choice.

And the DNC should release the deliberations of this committee as these Rules were being established to begin with - so we can ferret out the hypocrites and the Clinton partisans who favored these rule changes to begin with, and now are so loathe to enforce

[SpencerCat]

"Technically, she leads in popular vote"

NO SHE DOESN'T. This is Clinton campaign spin. Stop repeating it. Facts still mean something.

[Teyshar]

Redo the Primary in both States, allowing anyone to vote who HASN'T voted period. Redo the Primary but only allow Democrats and others who have not voted in another primary to vote. Otherwise it is not fair. Republicans could have switched parties not happy with who was running on the R side. However, what if John Edwards won either of these states? All I am saying you can not include them now without someone being screwed. Add the new count to the old count. But even that may not work as we now have statistics on where Hillary was close and Obama can then steal Florida or Michigan and then what?

This is stupid.

[pkohan]

I'd be fine with a re-vote in both states, but even those would be somewhat tainted (as the candidates in the race at that pint in time are essentially rendered moot).

But the states themselves couldn't make it work for whatever reason despite numerous attempts to get a revote amped up - I just can't believe that no party or parties can't pony up the cash or the willpower to make these re-votes happen in a timely manner (after all - you'd think after lending her campaign $11 million+ that Bill and Hillary themselves could pony up some more cash to make this happen and legitimize her claims).

And for that - there is plenty of blame to go around - the DNC, the states, the Obama and Clinton campaigns - they all deserve a portion of blame.

[daftdada]

This entire "superdelegate" scenario helps establish the fact that the 2-party system in American politics is rotten to the core. Sure we would all vote for the best person, but unfortunately that person never becomes a candidate...and BTW, who actually "chooses" the candidates? I believe that many will agree that it is the mainstream media who actually decide who gets to become "viable."
Poor Ron Paul, he got shafted by the mainstream American media.

[MsLiz]

Please go to school and learn why the two and a half party system works. The half party refers to the various third parties which come and go every election cycle. The system builds concensus. If you think this is rotton, try something else. It won't be perfect and the power hungry will finds ways to manipulate it. Ron Paul did not get shafted; he was just born a century too late for his political philosophy. His followers are uneducated and unseasoned, and haven't figured out that it is the Republican party which must be discarded.

[4wehttam]

How the hell can you and her camp claim that she has the most popular vote? SHE DOESN'T. Lay off the coke, will ya??

MI and FL cannot be counted AS IS......I realize people came and voted, but people ALSO stayed home because they knew their votes wouldn't count.

In EVERY state the democrat turnout was higher than the republican turnout except in maybe Utah (Romney) and Arizona (McBush) and of course the two contested states....why is that? Smart people who usually vote for Barack didn't come out because they knew the DAMN rules. So if she's giving him a zero vote in MI and a lot less than what's fair in FL how can she and the DNC possibly live with themselves?

This is the woman that stated SHE would be the nominee on Super Tuesday, that by Feb 5 it would ALL BE OVER because she would have won the majority of delegates (which by the way Barack achieved today, but since he achieved it, it's a sacrilege to say it's over), thereby DISENFRANCHISING millions of voters in the remaining states after Feb 5. Oh, but it's ok to disenfranchise voters as long as SHE'S the nominee. Why doesn't she get asked this question? Inquiry minds want to know.

[lennix]

CUT THE BS CHANGE CA NNOT BE STOP

[knosiswar]

It wont be a RIOT, it will be the single biggest walk out of work day and march on your capitol and city hall. And a Salt and Pepper Crowd it will be. Or CHARLES MANSON WINS HELTER SKELTER BOO, FEAR SCARE SCARE

[IQ]

*CONT*
You also conveniently failed to mention the commentary of Mr. Matthews on the same show where he said that the Black Commuinty would be very angry '...after one of theirs finally gets the nomination and something called The Superdelegates overturned the victory..' -You see In your zeal to justify a scenario that you obviously favor, the possibility that the Democratic system could overturn the nomination of the first African American nominee you saw the need in creating a straw man. In this case a straw woman. The real race baiting is currently being practiced this very evening(in Kentucky, W.Va) by people that are running a losing campaign on the jet fuel that is the racial fracture, schism even, that has been in existence since the inception of this great nation. Those that intentionally choose to trade on and benefit from the original sin of America, Race, widen the racial divide.

Mr. Ostroy what you took for race-baiting from Ms Bernard was a testimony of the pride, delight, bewilderment and yes the anger that is in the black community right now. I am here to bear witness to the same.

Ps.
Since Sen. Obama continues to gain momentum towards the nomination despite the corrosive behavior of folks like yourself; The question that needs to be answered by you and your fellow passionate supporters of Mrs Clinton is will you behave Yourself in Denver?

[IQ]

Your attack on Ms. Bernard is unjustified. In addition to being president of the Independent Women's Forum, you intentionally fail to mention that she is African American and also that her alma mater, Howard University is the preeminent Historically Black University in America. Part of Howard University's core creed is to inform each member of the student body about the history of the African Diaspora and their individual connection to that great lineage. For you to go out of your way not to mention her racial background to give context to her comments is shameful.

Throwing around the phrase 'race baiting' about a Black person who has strong ties to the Black community is indicative of simplistic logic. Does it make sense that a person of her background and dedication to community to espouse literal riots that can only harm HER community? When Rush Limbaugh or some right-wing flamethrower who owes their careers to stoking the flames of racial animus says something about race riots then that would be justified.

She obviously has conservative ties and leanings. Despite being a conservative she has defended Sen. Obama consistently when she thought he was being unfairly assaulted by the press (The ABC debate) or the Clinton Campaign. Alternatively she has also assailed him when she disagreed with him on strategy. It is obvious I, unlike you, have friends that are African American and conservative. They to a person are very proud of Sen. Obama. --Cont