Can The Superdelegates Afford To Say No To Clinton?

This primary is not a symbol of the progress America is making in terms of gender or race; it's not a personal battle between Clinton and Obama; it's not a popularity contest. The stakes are too high for that.

It's about deciding who can save America and the rest of the world from having another Republican President.

It's about stopping neoconservatism in its tracks. It's about calming rather than exacerbating the geo-political threats that confront us all, from the streets of New York or London, to the mountains of Afghanistan. It's quite literally about the future of this planet.

This decision, with its overwhelming consequences for America and the rest of the world, must be made on the basis of who can beat John McCain in the fall and win the White House back for the Democrats. That is the solemn and awesome responsibility facing the superdelegates.

Their choice is stark and difficult. Barack Obama has captured the media's, and thus the public's imagination. He has fought a brilliant campaign. He has won more states, more pledged delegates, and more positive headlines than his opponent. But his path to victory in November looks unfamiliar and precarious to Democrats who are too used to losing general elections.

Meanwhile, there stands Hillary Clinton. Yes, she is behind in pledged delegates, she has taken a pummeling in the media, and she has been counted out of this race by many of the pundits. But crucially she is also holding in her hands a tried and tested electoral map that leads the Democrats through Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and right back up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House.

Now that the entirely laudable sentiment that "we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, [but] the United States of America" has been superseded by urgent calculations about what color the map will actually turn in November, the superdelegates must be given a free rein to make this monumental decision in the interests of the party, and of the country: they must pick a candidate who they know can win.

The main obstacle in Clinton's path is now the potent argument that for superdelegates to award her the nomination, they would have to vote against the pledged delegate totals, and in doing so, would "overturn the will of the people."

It is vital that this argument is seen for the myth that it is.

It's an argument based on the premise that the pledged delegates do indeed represent "the will of the people." And that is an Obama campaign talking point, designed to make his victory appear inevitable, and the remaining unaffiliated superdelegates feel as though supporting Clinton would look anti-democratic, as though a Clinton victory would be seen as "stealing the nomination" from Senator Obama.

The irony is that this talking point grows louder the more actual votes Hillary wins, and the nearer she gets to a lead in the popular vote.

Let's take Texas as an example of how flawed the pledged delegate metric really is. We all know that Hillary Clinton won the Lone Star State. It was her second great comeback -- a big win that surprised the pundits and confirmed she was back in the game, right? Wrong. It was, in fact, Barack Obama who won Texas. 100,000 more people voted for Hillary, but, thanks to the caucus, Obama netted 5 more pledged delegates than she did.

Look me in the eye and tell me those delegates represent "the will of the people" of Texas.

Now let's turn to Idaho. Obama won Idaho by 13,000 votes, and picked up an estimated 12 delegates. Over in Pennsylvania, Clinton picked up the exact same number of delegates -- 12 -- but won the state by a margin of 200,000 votes. Which means that within the delegate system 13,000 voters in Idaho equal 200,000 voters in Pennsylvania.

We can all agree that pledged delegates constitute part of the "rules" of this primary, but let's not pretend they are an accurate measure of "the will of the people".

The result of the arcane, over-complicated and often counter-intuitive delegate system is that after months of voting, millions of dollars spent, and a carbon footprint of horrendous proportions, "the will of the people" will remain at worst undecipherable, and at best, disputable.

So it is that the Clinton campaign talks about the popular vote as their metric of choice. This angers Obama's supporters, who complain that she is trying to "change the rules" mid-race. But that misses the point. She is merely using the popular vote as an argument for the superdelegates. Because, like it or not, the same rules that have Obama with an insurmountable pledged delegate lead also prevent him from winning without the superdelegates.

All this now rests in their hands. They have a responsibility to make this decision based on electability in November, and to free themselves from the enormous pressure they are under to ratify a pledged delegate count that emphatically does not represent the "will of the people."

The choice is agonizing. But there is only one candidate offering a tried and tested path to a Democratic White House. There is only one safe bet for the party, and the American people at this critical time in our history.

With the stakes this high, can the superdelegates really say no to Hillary Clinton?

Comments

[UrbanInterloper]

Putting aside the debate about electability, how can you type this statement without irony:

"It's about calming rather than exacerbating the geo-political threats that confront us all..."

How can you not see the glaring contradiction between your correct assessment above, and Sen. Clinton's reckless statement that she wants the Iranian people to know that the U.S. has the power to "totally obliterate" them? Paired with her regretful enabling of Bush in 2002, I don't see how you or anyone can say that Clinton has calmed any threats whatsoever.

Even worse, the damage from her Iran threat is already done--we don't need to wait for the election, or for McCain to start "exacerbating geo-political threats." I wish this wasn't true, but wishing won't change what was said.

Please, listen to your own logic and think about what you're advocating.

[nazardesign]

Gosh, others have said it. Yes they can!

[IslandGyal]

I guess you question is rhetorical, since the super delegates are saying NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[McFlipFlop]

"Look me in the eye and tell me those delegates represent "the will of the people" of Texas."

Okay, looking in your eye, and telling you that the delegates represent the will of the people in Texas.

Thank goodness we have the caucus so that we can override the Limbaugh 'Operation Chaos' popular vote here.

The pledged delegate winner has always been the nominee.

Here's Obama's winning electoral college vote. Obama is winning the general election polls TODAY with 272 electoral votes. California (55), New York (31), Pennsylvania (21), Illinois (21), Ohio (20), New Jersey (15), Massachusetts (12), Washington (11), Maryland (10), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Oregon (7), Connecticut (7), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Hawaii (4), Maine (4), Rhode Island (4), Delaware (3), DC (3), and Vermont (3).

Of course, he also may win Michigan (17), Nevada (5), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), New Hampshire (4), and who knows what else?

[Thabit]

Actually Obama"s staff looked at the districts they needed to do do well in each state primary or caucus , no theft just superior planning . What makes anyone think he is not already making the same types of plans for the general ellection. With all their digging all his enemys can come up with is the mutterings of preachers , against McCain Obama can see McCains cards and raise him a handful of foul pastors as well so no advantage republicans . As to Hillarys ellectability her husband goes to trial for campaign finance cheating while Hillary appeals to the "bubba factor" who will vote republican in the fall anyway (even if she was the nominee) while firing up the republican base to hoid their nose and vote for McCain. I for one would vote for McCain over Hillary so the the mess of the next 4 years will have a republican tag instead of a democratic one . After the campaign she has run Hillary will do well to keep her seat in the senate with no AA votes to help her. What a sour joke of a campaign she ran

[ddharder]

I have yet to see a decent argument that makes Clinton viable in the GE. Many who voted for her in the primaries are questionable, as in, many who voted for her did so strategically in an attempt to run her against McCain in the fall assuming she would rally the GOP base against her.

Personally, I don't see a great deal of difference between her rhetoric, her pandering, or her policy over what McCain and the neocons have to offer. So, if you want to frame this in terms of the necessity to not let the neocons have another 4 year run, why are you offering up basically a soft neocon as the best choice?

[LionEater]

Simon, you're a young fella. You seem fairly intelligent. What on earth do you like about Clinton? I can't understand why any thinking person would support this woman.

[Leper]

Former Bush donors now giving to Obama's campaign
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/39067.html

>>Katherine Merck, 84, of Lexington, Mass., preferred not to recall her donations of $2,000 to Bush in 1999 and $2,000 in 2004.

"I just can't get over it that my name is in there for sending money to that miserable president," she said. "I think Obama is something we all need badly, really badly. I think that people need to grow up more and learn how to get on in the world without resorting to killing people. I'm talking about the war in Iraq."

>> Corrado (Anthony Corrado, a government professor at Colby College in Maine who specializes in campaign finance) said he thinks some of the ex-Bush donors have given to Obama to hurt Hillary Clinton " a suspicion confirmed by Henry Corey, 86, of Bronxville, N.Y., a longtime GOP donor.

He said he gave Obama $250 because, "frankly, I wanted to be sure that someone nudged Hillary Clinton aside. I think she'd be a disaster."

[TopDog]

With Hillary out of the way....Obama will destroy McCain in November. Many republicans and independents will support him.

Never mind what the polls say now, they will change as did the polls in the primary.

[Leper]

>>With the stakes this high, can the superdelegates really say no to Hillary Clinton?

The answer is not "yes, the superdelegates can say no to Hillary Clinton," it is "yes, the superdelegates MUST say no to Hillary Clinton." She has expended not only most of the donatation received to stay in the race this long (notwithstanding the loan she has made to herself), but she has also expended the good will she has had with the rest of the Democratic Party.

Her whining about the Michigan and Florida delegates was proceded by her efforts to suppress the vote in Nevada. Both are indications that she really has no respect for rules or voters.

She smeared Obama with Rev. Wright (guilt by association) and twistied his "bitter" words to mean something totally different than what he said, yet she took no responsibility for her words regarding "assasination." Barrack Obama took responsibility for his words and he sacrificed Rev. Wright to calm the political storms caused by Hillary and the Media.

Republican don't take responsibility for anything which is why nothing got done under Republican control of the Executive and Legislative branches. Hillary Clinton doesn't take responsibility either. We cannot afford another four years of a President not taking responsibility for the welfare of the country. It isn't about Hillary. It's about the country.

[funnyguy]

The answer is going to come in buckets starting Wednsday, and Simon you won't like it.

[aht772e]

i will look you in the eye. winning texas' delegates represents the will of the people because you and I BOTH know that many of HRCs voters that night will never vote for a democrat in the fall (and in fact texas willnever give its electoral votes to a democrat in this fall's election) . Asfor Idaho, yes, 13,000 caucus goers, while there are 7 candidates Do represent a serious "will of the people" especially when the THIRD PLACE HRC arrives with all the name recognition and "inevitability."
as for the "electoral map" which states exactly will you tell me that hillary wins and obama loses, because I doubt there are any. I do know that the "will of the people" popular votes that HRC maybe claiming, include an awful lot of votes made long ago that would not hold up today (ie. california, etc...)
finally, winning a state electorally is winning, margin doesn't count..
Think about this for a moment... African americans stay away from the polls because they think that the democratic party refuses to nominate a candidate who won by the rules. OR, instead of 52% of women voting democratic (as they did in 2004 prez election) some smaller #, maybe only 50% do. which scenario wins the presidency, and congressional majority? In my mind the answer is obvious, no democrat wins a senate race without massive African american support (nor nominee states electoral votes), nor do nearly as many congress people. case CLOSED.

[zann]

Clinton is the only one who really understands and fights for the will of the people.

Take the case of Michigan. The Democratic Party there doesn't get it. Marking a name printed on a ballot is what counts. Others make try to make an issue of technicalities such as the widespread myth that those votes wouldn't count, that 30,000 write-in votes were ignored, and that some names were off the ballot. Blah, blah, blah.

If they counted every vote in Florida in 2000, the Democrats would have won.

Clinton opponents in Michigan want to use polls to interpret the will of the voters. The polls that show Clinton winning against McCain in battleground states are important. Some claim polls 5 months before an election aren't accurate. But its polls that show that Democrats prefer Obama by 10 points that don't count, since they don't represent marks by a name printed on a ballot.

McCain 2008. Clinton 2012.

[aht772e]

If they counted every vote in Florida in 2000, Gore would have won. BUT EVERYONE IN FLORIDA THAT DAY BELIEVED THAT THEIR VOTE COUNTED, AND EVERBODY"S NAME WAS ON THE BALLOT! in michigan in 2008, each democrat agreed (in writing) it wouldn't count, and they didn't campaign, thus making name recognition everything(see big business above), for the voters who bothered to vote in an election they were told wouldn't count.

AND who here thinks hillary wins New Hampshire if NH knows she is going ot fight to allow other states to intrude on their "first in the nation" status? No, all talk of Michigan and florida came way after that.

[aht772e]

IF as a party, you believe it is important to have a progression of primaries, to control a primary schedule, starting with small states so people can meet the candidates in face to face settings, weed out the less fit, then move to the larger states to test the candidates abilities in those types of races, then you MUST be able to set the primary schedule.
The DNC did that, and with a rules committee with a majority of Clinton backers, they HAD to penalize the 2 states who were trying to increase their own power by moving ahead in the schedule. IF you believe that a party must control how its nominees are selected, I ask you what other method, OTHER THAN ELIMINATING DELEGATES you would use to force states and ambitious politicians (ie. sen levin) to obey the party's schedule? Seriously, give me another method to control the system, or stop complaining!

Because without any control, we simply make EVERY candidate run a nationwide primary 365 days prior to the general election(because every state wants to go first) thus guaranteeing that ONLY the candidate who has raised the most money BEFORE campaigning begins can win? And that will be the candidate most beholden to big business.

[Thabit]

Personally i think they should have given the elected delegates half votes and given the super delegates no votes from these 2 states. It was the super delegates that did not control themselves or their states during this fiascio and so they should pay the biggest price

[fungeezer]

Another way of looking at Hillary is that Sen. Clinton has now set a records for primary elections in the votes cast against her. Can't say you would see that on the media anytime soon.

[JXB]

(Looking you in the eye) Those delegates represent the will of the people of Texas. Why? Because the rules say they do. Under the rules that have been in place from the beginning of the primary race, the pledged delegates are the official and only measure of the "winner" of the electoral contests. Period. Statements like "We all know Hillary won the Lone Star State" require a change of the rules in order to be true.

If you want to argue that the rules are quirky or bad, then there is probably a lot to talk about for 2012, and I'm sure you can have a great exchange of ideas with those advocating the elimination of the electoral college, but you don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game.

If the shoe was on the other foot, then Clinton would have the same right to claim the mantle of being the pledged delegate victor, the "voters' choice," the winner of the electoral contests. And if this were so, is there any doubt you would be forcefully making these very points on Clinton's behalf as reasons the superdelegates must side with her, must affirm the "voters' choice," and must avoid like the plague choosing the second-place finisher in the electoral contests because such would appear to millions of primary/caucus voters as undemocratic, disenfranchsing, and Sovietesque backroom kingmaking?