Much has been made of whether or not Barack Obama can close the deal against Hilary Clinton, and that his failure to do so raises questions about his viability in the fall assuming he receives the nomination.
Such concerns, though legitimate, miss the more salient point -- there is no other alternative for Democrats if they wish to reclaim the White House.
Another way to put it, whatever concerns exist surrounding Obama's viability pale in comparison to those of Clinton; she cannot win. I say this not as an Obama supporter or Clinton detractor but as a political observer. Obama is the Democrats only hope to end eight years of Oval Office exile.
The Clinton campaign has been very effective at driving up Obama's negatives. There is no doubting that he has lost some of his swagger that initially indicated he was above the traditional politics as usual fray.
But Clinton has not gone unscathed. She has, according to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, driven up her negatives 14 points since January where they now stand at a staggering 54 percent.
While the Obama campaign has decried the Clinton's "kitchen sink strategy" as negative campaigning, has anything been done that will not be replicated in the fall?
I'm still not clear as to what constitutes negative campaigning; its political definition is at best an ever-changing, subjective slippery slope.
With the possible exception of George Washington's inaugural election, when has America not had a presidential campaign that failed to rely in part on the deficiencies of one's opponent? The internal differences within the Federalist Party along with the external negative campaigning led by Thomas Jefferson insured that John Adams would be the last Federalist to be commander-in-chief.
I can hear Obama supporters asking: What about Jeremiah Wright? What about "bittergate"?
These examples say more about "We the People" and our appetite for negativity--an appetite that has existed since 1797, if not before. Has it not been proven repeatedly that negative campaigning, however defined, is successful?
A portion of the electorate has always been more motivated by the negativity of the "other" candidate, perceived or otherwise, than their candidate of choice. But negative campaigning does not sway the masses; it usually has a much narrower focus.
As the Apostle Paul once wrote, this is "sounding brass and tinkling symbol" because Clinton cannot win.
It has been reported ad infinitum that Clinton must garner 67 percent in the remaining primaries to overtake Obama in the popular vote -- a feat that she has only achieved once thus far. Most agree that she cannot overtake him in pledge delegates.
In this context, to receive the nomination by way of superdelegates is to risk the Democratic Party becoming the 21st century version of the Federalist.
I just don't see how the majority Obama supporters would accept an outcome decided by superdelegates, especially if they lead in popular vote and pledge delegates. Moreover, I do see a large number of African Americans permanently leaving the party en masse should this occur.
There is no scenario that a Democratic candidate with a negative rating of 54 percent, losing a large portion of the African American vote can win. I doubt that a candidate in that context can win as many states as George Mc Govern in 1972, who won only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.
Am I saying anything that super delegates are not already aware? No! Nor does this suggest that Clinton should drop out. Clinton staying in the race is the price that Obama must pay for his failure to officially close the deal.
But everyone is looking at the same numbers; and the numbers say it's Obama's nomination. The only way it can change would be inside party politics.
Whatever concerns party leaders have about Obama not being able to close the deal is moot, he is their dog in the race. To change now would not only be to lose in November, it could also mean the demise of the country's oldest political party.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or go to his website, byronspeaks.com