Like the rest of America, Rep. Rahm Emanuel knows that Hillary Clinton's quest for the presidency is dying a slow and irreversible death. He has even called Barack Obama "the presumptive nominee." Yet when it comes to the question of how Emanuel will cast his own all-important superdelegate ballot, he couldn't be more cautious. Known in political circles for his killer instinct, Emanuel describes his current position as "hiding under my desk."
What is it about the Clintons that puts the fear of God in these hard-nosed political people? Why are Emanuel and the rest of the undecided superdelegates so fearful of finally ending this thing?
We've known for a long time that this ridiculous system of superdelegates will ultimately decide the nominee. What's clear now is that Obama will end the campaign ahead in the popular vote, pledged delegates, and states won. However you add it up - and the Clinton campaign is advancing new theories of math daily -- Obama has won the primaries.
The superdelegates have two choices: back up the will of the people, or reverse it. This should be a no-brainer, and for most of them, it is. There's no way the Democratic Convention is going to overturn the clear result of the primaries -- you couldn't invent a better way for them to antagonize their own base and increase the odds of losing the general election.
But instead of stepping up to the plate and ending this thing, the majority of undecided superdelegates are waiting for someone else to do it, emerging from under the desk in a trickle instead of a flood. Many of them have admitted that Obama will be the nominee, and even said that Clinton's continual hammering of him will damage his prospects in the general election.
Rep. James Clyburn has called the Clintons' negative campaign tactics "bizarre" and publicly worries that her attacks will damage the party in the fall. But his superdelegate vote? He's still undecided.
Rep. Charles Rangel responded to Hillary's latest race-baiting tactics with the quote: "I can't believe Sen. Clinton would say anything that dumb." She did. And Rangel? Still officially supporting her.
Even Nancy Pelosi has been intimidated into backing away from her comments that superdelegates should support the will of the people -- as if that is a highly controversial statement.
Yes, there are still states left to vote, and ideally it should be the voters who decide the nominee and not the superdelegates. But the reality is, if the superdelegate system was not in place, Obama would have already mathematically wrapped up the nomination. The only chance Clinton has of winning is to convince the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people.
The undecided superdelegates should step up now and say they won't let that happen. It's time to come out from under the desk.
Brendan Spiegel is a former reporter at Congressional Quarterly and the editor of Endless Simmer.
I understand, up to a point, the reluctance of the superdelegates to add the sorely needed punctuation point (.) to this protracted and futile leg of the race for Hillary. HOWEVER, I don't believe this is the only force at play. I see the superdelegates' reluctance as yet one more sympom of our sick politics in this country. Specifically, it is this fear of the consequences. And, yes, any politician who knows the Clintons, knows that you do not cross the Clintons if you value your career.
This is the sort of Washington mentality that allowed so many good politicians to vote yes for the war in Iraq. This is the mentality that will keep this country mired in bad policies, ruled by dysfunctional motives, until something changes. Hence, my vote for Barack Obama, a man who aspires to better things.
For the record, come next election -- while weighing the integrity of the candidates in my state -- I'll certainly remember those superdelegates from this primary season who had the integrity to do the right thing, consequences be damned.
The Clintons cannot steal this nomination nor can they sabotage Obama's chance although they've done much damage already. It will be a political suicide for the Clintons. I've said it before and will say it again. 17 million people supported Obama. You can't dismiss these people as if it was just a dream. There will be more of them in 4 years. 2012 will be worse for the Clintons. There will be less older population to support her in 2012, but there will be more millennials eligible to vote in 2012. Think about that.
Good comment.
I just wonder if it was John Edwards or Joe Biden instead of Barack Obama, if they would still be waiting this thing out.
I wonder.
And the truth is: Obama supporters are like Obama. Respectful and to coin an old word, nice.
See, "Bad Faith and the Superdelegate"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
Watch her speech tonight. You will no signs of someone preparing to depart. She's not going anywhere. If she can't have the nomination, she will bring down Obama and the party.
and, pleeeasse, don't let her be VP....
What an 'if.'
'If' it were winner take all, or electoral college based, Hillary would be the nominee. So let's stop with the 'ifs.'
The supers are gauging what to do next. They go for Obama, they throw away all this good momentum on a losing prospect. It's great to see so many people taking part this year. Yes, Obama is ahead with delegates, etc. etc. But what this recent win reflects is the reality of the electorate, and it does not bode well for Dems in November with Obama at the top of the ticket. Realize it, or continue to put your head in the sand.
Everyone's talking up Clinton's big win in WV... but look at Obama's big wins:
States & elections won with 60% or more of the vote:
Barack Obama: 17 Contests (15 States + DC + VI)
* Virgin Islands (89.9%)
* Idaho (79%)
* Hawaii (76%)
* Alaska (75%)
* District of Columbia (75%)
* Kansas (74%)
* Washington (68%)
* Nebraska (68%)
* Minnesota (67%)
* Colorado (67%)
* Georgia (67%)
* Illinois (65%)
* Virginia (64%)
* Maryland (62%)
* North Dakota (61%)
* Wyoming (61%)
* Mississippi (61%)
Hillary Clinton: 2 States
* Arkansas (70%)
* West Virginia (60%)
He's had as many 60%+ wins as she's had total wins overall.
With Obama as a candidate, failure is a certainty unless we find McCain is an axe murderer, and even then, it will be only if he doesn't wipe off the axe that he will lose to Obama.
The democratic party desperately needs to split off into a progressive party, to allow the fringe thinking that has fueled Obama as a candidate to not take down the rest of us Democrats.
The Clinton's are the people who are bringing down the Democratic Party. Hillary with her "obliterate Iran" comments, and Hillary with her distortions of her foreign policy experience, and Hillary with her 'white voters" comments, and Hillary claiming to be so chaste when actually she's facing an FEC FRAUD lawsuit, and Hillary demanding the DNC to do what she wants rather than accept a compromise.
Obama has all the qualities that make for a highly successful candidate, nominee and president, not the least of which are his organizational leadership abilities, which Hillary totally lacks.
You presume that superdelegates are reluctant to side with one candidate or the other because they find Obama to be lacking. If that were so, they would have already pledged for Hillary. More likely they just don't want to stick their heads up because superdelegates are supposed to do their work outside of the limelight, not in it. None of these people want to take center stage after the media has told us for months that it is they, and not the voters, who will determine the outcome of the election. It stinks of corruption, even when no actual corruption exists.
But why am I wasting my breath on you? You are living in Hillaryland.
We desperately need to separate the West Virgina democrats from the Hyde Park democrats. They share nothing in common, and each will disappoint the other by not supporting the other.
Hillary would win in a three way race over McCain and Obama easily as either a third party candidate, or as the Democrat with Obama as the progressive party. My opinion.