The Road to Denver -- A Firewall for Hillary, A Firetrap for Obama

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: [e-mail]

Comments

[KSH]

I am an Obama supporter and I think the rules should be left as is. ALL these candidates knew were the rules were when they decided to run.
1. The super delegates have a say so at the convention. They should not have to vote with their constiuents if they don't want to. But they must be ready to suffer the consequence come election time.

2. Michigan and Florida's delegates should not count AT all. Not the people's fault but the party's fault. The DNC thought this race was going to be a Hillary Cake Walk to the White House...su­rprise, surprise!

Everyone should just go by the rules and let the process play out.

[nancytheragingliberal]

I would love to see Obama jerk McCain around, just like Rachel Maddow does each night on MSNBC, when she makes mincemeat out of ol' Pat B. I suspect that Obama will get under McCain's skin in no time, thus, forcing McCain to lose his temper. Look at the way McCain went off on poor Larry King. McCain is a run-away train and I agree with Obama. It won't take much for the wheels to fly off of the "Straight Talk Express." McCain will be the worst pres. in the world, why, he is to the far right of W. and his minions. He will stack the Supreme and Federal Courts with more Alitos and Roberts, so the courts will continue going to the crazy right.

My suggestion to Michelle and Barack Obama is to ensure that his people maintain humility and humanistic qualities. Once you lose humility, you are a loser.

[eddiestardust]

I think I've figured out Obama supporters­..
They don't have good long term memory!
They don't remember that Republicans IMPEACHED Bill Clinton and don't seem to realize that the worst possible thing we could do to them is to put Hillary in the White House with Bill too.

Apparently everyone forgets that Bill was ever President.

With Hillary you get two not one!

[anthonylee]

And you think this is a GOOD thing?

Which Clinton would Congress hold responsible for a "High Crime", or better yet, how would "We the People" maintain the "Checks & Balances" between the Executive and Legislative branches (i.e. A Constitutional Provision)?

[BeyondKen]

Which Clinton should be held responsible for balanced budgets, low unemployment, and eight years of unprecedented prosperity?

[mrJJ]

Texas as a firewall hehehe.. None of these people know a damn thing about texas and its primary rules... and how delegates are appropriated.

126 delegates are "primary-chosen" delegates, allocated based on the results of votes cast on March 4. The 126 delegates that are allocated by the "regular" primary system will be the only ones that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama can add to their tally after March 4. These 126 delegates are divided based on the voting strength of each candidate in the 31 State Senate Districts across Texas.

67 delegates are "caucus-chosen" delegates, allocated at the state convention.

228 Texas Delegates

126 "primary-chosen" delegates, allocated based on the results of votes cast on March 4.

42 at-large, "caucus-chosen" delegates that come up through the primary and county convention.

25 pledged "party delegates" allocated by the presidential preference of delegates attending the State convention.

35 unpledged "super delegates" -texas senate type not elite type



http://www.superdelegates.org/
http://www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml
http://www.opensecrets.org

[Tellmethetruth]

thanks Mr.JJ for the information that Texas like Washington State in which Jeffers writes from has a confusing system of picking a nominee (Washington State had a caucus in which app. 10,000 of its 5millin population participated in, which counts 100% for the Democrate and 50% for the Republican and on Feb. 19th has a primary vote which most of the population thinks counts, but only if you are a Republican).

If nothing else comes from this election, the Democratic party needs to reform it's system of chosing a President and get rid of caucuses and super delegates and restore the voter the right to one person one vote and to vote in secret rather than to be bullied into supporting someone at a caucus.

[Herrington]

Another wild card in Texas, I have heard, is that delegates are pre-apportioned not by voting district population, but by the history of voter participation.

And since Latinos have a history of low voter participation, heavily Latino districts will be under represented in terms of allocating delegates, no matter how many turn out.

That sucks if you are Hillary, as does the Republican gerrymandering of recent years. Tends to make nonsense of the polls.

[Tasies]

Listen,

Hillary is going to lose the general election. Obama will get in line and endorse her, and so will some of his supporters. But outside the old Democratic guard, and some party loyalist, no one else is going to get behind her.

The lousy, desperate, and nefarious campaign she's running will not soon be forgotten by a chunk of Obama's supporters. Many progressives and independents have finally been exposed to the fact that there isn't much of a disparity between her tactical approach to campaigning from Repubs.

This primary has exposed her way too much. In retrospect, if it would've been a cake walk, she would've found some protection, but the ammunition left over from this primary will be too much to overcome. In a sense, the dirty work has already been done, and Repubs won't have to search too deep to find a strategy against Hillary.

The only thing that can save her campaign in a general election is the individual that she's spent the last two months defacing, of course, that is Barack Obama as VP.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Thank you for that honest opinion. This is what I don't get. The Party. People may not agree with Clinton on her stand of some issues, but the hate-filled comments that run rampant on the blogs, in the media...I expect that from Republicans, but from fellow democrats, even independen­ts...that'­s is just uncalled for. Her history of fighting for children alone is superior, her knowledge of policy is superior, her excellent work for the State of New York, her terms as First Lady for Arkansas and the Nation, traveling worldwide for us all...it leaves me to wonder where this hate comes from. Again, I expect it from the right, but from the left....?

[BrooklynLager]

I think it's two things: one - a lot of it is simply people trying to stir up trouble, and a lot of it is immature pro-Obama people reacting to immature Clinton supporters. I mean, prior to Super Tuesday, Obama supporters were mocked mercilessly, and since then I think everyone's been a little defensive.

If you think Obama voters are nasty, get a load of this: http://www.taylormarsh.com

Read the comments.

[Tasies]

Bushsurvivor,
Please, don't paint the Hillary camp as innocent sacrificial lambs. They're currently running as ruthless as a Dem. primary that I've been witness to in my life time, and I'm no spring chicken.

[moreofthesame]

Hillary has made a few mistakes in her campaigne. For one thing, she has thoroughly underestimated Obama. Prior to Obama winning in Iowa, I do not think there was that many who thought that he had a chance. After his win in Iowa, I remembered I told my friend that hey, he got a chance. His win in Iowa has turned Hillary's campaigne upside and we all know what happened after that. Hillary has a chance to win in Texas and Ohio and from then on it should be 50-50 chance for both of them. How about a stalemate in the end?

[veleria]

Obama is like a Rock star. If he wins the nomination he will not win the general election. We can look forward to 4 more years of a Bush like President.

[ChimpmasterDJ]

I started out supporting Kucinich, but went to Edwards out of sheer realism about "electability".

I'm now for Obama, through attrition, but he's quite acceptable and admirable to me.

On the other hand, if Edwards somehow sees fit to endorse Hillary, I never want to hear his name again. He will have abdicated any and all credibility and, should he ever run for dog-catcher anywhere, I would vociferously support his defeat.

[bauersox]

"On the other hand, if Edwards somehow sees fit to endorse Hillary, I never want to hear his name again. He will have abdicated any and all credibility and, should he ever run for dog-catcher anywhere, I would vociferously support his defeat."

Oh dear. Edwards must be worried sick.

[CalliDem]

Donna Barzille and HONEST?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/8/113147/1289


The day after Super Tuesday, on the February 6, 2008, edition of CNN's Situation Room, Democratic political consultant, Super-dele­gate-at-La­rge and DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member Donna Brazile said:

"If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this. ... There's no reason why we should decide this election. I feel very strongly."

Interesting, very interesting.

Why? Because Donna Brazile, speaking at the September 28, 2007, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's 37th Annual Legislative Conference forum on The Future of Black Politics, in which "Panelists talked about the presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama and what it signals for other black candidates," said in regards to Super Tuesday

Over 45% of our delegates will be chosen on that day and if you don't think that we have political power, just wait until February 5th, 2008, we can determine the next nominee of the Democratic Party. We can also expand the number of African Americans who are holding political power. We can also build upon the success of Barack Obama. ... We have enormous political power and its time that we leverage it, and we build upon it, and we expand it...

[CalliDem]

Excuse me? Donna Brazille..­. an honest what?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/8/113147/1289

The day after Super Tuesday, on the February 6, 2008, edition of CNN's Situation Room, Democratic political consultant, Super-dele­gate-at-La­rge and DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member Donna Brazile said:

"If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this. ... There's no reason why we should decide this election. I feel very strongly."

Interesting, very interesting.

Why? Because Donna Brazile, speaking at the September 28, 2007, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's 37th Annual Legislative Conference forum on The Future of Black Politics, in which "Panelists talked about the presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama and what it signals for other black candidates," said in regards to Super Tuesday

Over 45% of our delegates will be chosen on that day and if you don't think that we have political power, just wait until February 5th, 2008, we can determine the next nominee of the Democratic Party. We can also expand the number of African Americans who are holding political power. We can also build upon the success of Barack Obama. ... We have enormous political power and its time that we leverage it, and we build upon it, and we expand it...

[midtown]

From the DailyKos:

:I heard Racist Garbage This Morning
by davefromqueens

Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:57:32 PM PST

This morning, while driving to work, I flipped through the radio channels and lo and behold, Don Imus was talking to Hillary supporter Carl Jeffers. Mr. Jeffers bluntly stated much of the same garbage I've heard SEVERAL Clinton supporters tell me personally. And I'm tired of it.

Jeffers basically made the following claims

• No way "Middle America" will vote for a "black man."

• Obama can't respond toughly back at McCain because he will be "perceived as an angry black man" and "America isn't used to that."

• Hillary is more electable because she will get the Latino vote and many Latinos won't vote for a black man.:

[SShaw490]

Hillary is behind in earned delegates by about 130. Obama is likely to win Wisconsin and Hawaii on Tuesday. Hillary is ahead in the polls in Ohio, but it's about even in Texas (among widely divergent polls), and on Super Tuesday, Obama showed his remarkable ability to create waves of momentum that overcame even double-digit leads in less than a week. Hillary has to win, and win very big, to overcome that 130+ earned delegate lead, and if she doesn't, she loses. She's not going to be willing to convince many superdelegates to overturn the voting results, she's not going to be able to convince the party to reinstate Florida and Michigan, and in fact the party is going to go to her and try to get her to take a deal. "So, Hillary, how does Senate Majority Leader sound to you?"

[bobdob]

"...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."

I'm pretty sure nobody else is using your definition (or your logical fallacy). Winning big in those states means winning by 20 points or more. IN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE STATES. Ain't gonna happen. James Carville, tonight on Larry King, said that if Hillary doesn't lose in those states it will be the biggest political comeback in history. Talk about lowering expectations.

The B.S. is flying fast and furious. The end game is in place. Hillary could pull this out, but I doubt it. Unless Hillary is the poorest loser on the planet, the super delegates just
aren't going to have a choice.

[indie17]

Mr. Jeffers, you say, "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."

If you do the math, Hillary will have to win 56.5% of the remaining delegates in all outstanding races to obtain the lead in pledged delegates. That's a 13.2 point margin in all states, including Oregon, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Hawaii, etc. Your estimates do not come close to meeting this.

Obama has a 137 pledged delegate lead. There are 1105 pledged delegates remaining. The math is pretty easy.

[indie17]

Correcting typo -- Clinton would need a 13% margin in all remaining states to take the lead. If she is under that in any state, the percentage required in other states goes up.

Not going to happen. She will not win the pledged delegate count. This has been true since the Potomac primaries.

Clinton has lost the pledged delegate count. All she has left is the super delegate back-room dealing.

[InDaZone]

This guys math is totally wrong. If Hillary wins by only 12 points in all 3 states she will not have the PLEDGED delegate lead. He clearly does not know what he's talking about.

[uberlefty]

He knows exactly what hes talking about. He knows hes talking about an echo chamber. You repeat things that are false enough times and people will believe it. Dont be taken in by this Clinton surrogate hiding behind analysis. He is writing to the impressionable and the Clinton leaning to keep up moral. The next couple of weeks will be filled with more of this swill as the Hillarys people try to keep it together. He wants to create the idea of too close to call. If either candidate wins by just one pledged, which is to say voter determined, delegate that should be the nominee. The party faithful also known as Clinton supporter will be trying to sanitize the notion of a candidate chosen by the party. His conjecture that if the roles were reversed that Obama would be singing the praises of the super delegates is just that, conjecture. It is more smoke screen intended to put Obama in the same sleaze pond as the Hillary. The Clinton mafia will continue to put this in terms that makes her look principled when she isnt and like the winner when she is clearly behind. Dont believe a word of it.

[SeanGardner]

Wait a second...a­ren't you the guy who (on the morning after SUPER TUESDAY) dismissed Obama's RED STATES wins as insignificant? Yes.

You are part of the reason why many Democrats just don't get it. This is not about JUST winning Blue States. Because if it was, John Kerry would have been president in 2004.

As you know, Kerry didn't put enough resources in RED states like Missouri, and in "PURPLE" battle ground states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Ohio. If he did, he would have won. Period.

I remember what you actually said regarding Obama's Super Tuesday victories. You dismissed Obama's wins in "(RED)states the Democrats will not win in the fall." Will not win? So a general election win in Ruby RED Missouri isn't possible? A win in RED STATES like Colorado, Kansas and Alaska aren't possible, either? Barack Obama is the first clear beneficiary of Howard Dean's vaunted "50 State Strategy" which was largely responsible for getting Democrats a majority in Congress with a sizeable amount of the same culturally conservative Democrats, who are not unlike the DEMS from many of the RED STATES Obama picked up.

Obama won because people are drawn to his pragmatic approach to politics, honed during his 12 years as a politician, and his 20 years connected to the political system. People are drawn to his philosophy of a working majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to bring about transformational change.

Democrats need to be competing everywhere. Everywhere. Thank you very much. No DEM can win without capturing some RED STATES. So don't dismiss Obama's win in 8 RED STATES - particularly DEEP SOUTH states like Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama, which could become BLUE STATES if he were the nominee - due to the hundreds of thousands of poor african-americans who don't vote, but would with an Obama presidency.

[SeanGardner]

And let me comment on something you wrote above: "right now, I see Hillary winning all three of those states and winning them by 8 to 12 point margins." You know what the operative words are Mr. Jeffers: "right now". So, next week, when Obama wins both Hawaii and Wisconsin, and starts seamrolling, then tell me what your feeling is.

Clinton is in trouble with the voters, and there's not one fanciful post you can write that will change this fact.

Obama will be the president, and his VP will be Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. I look forward to seeing you in the crowd when Barack is inaugurated.

[Nommo]

He'll be with the crew standing on the sidelines waiting for the crowd to disperse so they can get started sweeping ticker tape.