After Super Tuesday and the Chesapeake Primary, the Democrats are sitting back with their heads spinning, staring bemusedly at a remarkably complicated picture. It's not chaos exactly, but it is puzzling. Everyone wonders: who is going to end up with the nomination? And the answer is: too many variables, impossible to tell.
Senator Obama collected the support of the largest labor union, the Service Workers International. He also was probably encouraged by the fact that a handful of Democrat Superdelegates backed away from their endorsements of Senator Clinton, placing their butts "on the fence" until future primaries will clear up the question- is Obama truly on a roll or is Clinton poised to halt his momentum in Ohio and Texas?
Other news supported the notion that nobody likes a front runner. Bill Clinton returned to his surrogate role in attacking Obama. He criticized Obama's health care plan. He complained that Obama is ignoring Bill's presidential legacy. Bill stated that Obama has found that it is "actually an advantage to not have any experience because you've not made anybody mad." Well, true enough Bill. But did you not benefit by being a somewhat obscure Arkansas Governor before you became President? In other anti-Obama news, Senator McCain accused him of failing to live up to his own ideals on campaign financing. That is an accusation that would apply to almost every presidential contender over the past 30 years of course, and it's easy for McCain to make it since he is behind in the $ race. McCain was perhaps encouraged by the fact that the Democrats had to spend their money fighting each other while he can spend it fighting them. That, plus collecting an endorsement from George H.W. Bush in his continuing attempt to regain the support of so called "true conservatives".
While ducking this "incoming", the Obama camp fired off a few "outgoing" rounds. Obama supporter former Senator Bill Bradley spoke with two other political "surrogates" accusing the Clintons of a lack of candor and disclosure concerning their money dealings during the Bill Clinton administration. Obama himself accused Senator Clinton of collecting lobbyist money in her campaign- easy accusation to make since Obama has a lead with individual contributions.
The Superdelegate situation muddies the picture considerably, especially since the dismissal of the Florida and Michigan primary delegations reduces the overall count of Dem delegates to the point that it is going to be hard for either candidate to reach the magic number. Dang those Florida and Michigan dummies who tried to bluff their way into getting their primaries ahead of the others! Why could they not glimpse the eventual complications of that risky dare if, as happened, the national Democrats called the bluff? True, the Democratic Party is not in the Constitution. But neither is the primary system itself, let's admit that too.
As we approach March 4, the date of the Texas and Ohio contests, the tension is going to mount again. It is nice get a breathing space. Blood pressure meds? Yes, Super Tuesday was a bit of drama. But March 4 could be bigger still.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 31
Most of the cabbies are Hispanic males - they ALL want Hillary! So much for male dominance in the Hispanic culture.
It's been an interesting election year so far... and will continue to be.
By the way, no insult intended, Rhode Island and Vermont are also March 4.
And we do not have to wait 3 weeks for more excitement, there are primaries in Washington State, Hawaii, and Wisconsin on Tuesday February 19th- 3 days!!
In any case, it's so nice to see Americans actually participating in the process rather than excepting the party establishments' front-runner, then whining about the choices.
I think in a way the Republicans are missing out by clinging to that winner-take-all mode in the primaries. It's almost over for them as a result, mcCain only needs less than 100 more delegates.
but what if that hope should fail?
Florida is more problematic. Both Hillary and Obama were on the ballot, so technically you could say people voted for their candidate of choice. However, the fact that the vote "wouldn't count" may have reduced the number of people going to vote, perhaps disproportionately for the candidates. Because Hillary has a very high name recognition over Obama (keep in mind this was before Super Tuesday), and that voters tend to vote for names they know (and that none of the candidates campaigned in Florida), there is a high likelihood that the voting would have been artificially biased toward Hillary.
So, without some sort of re-vote, which in itself would likely present slanted voting, it would seem that counting Michigan and Florida would not be possible.
Of course, if both states (as well as next week's Wisconsin, etc.) are very close, then all bets are off and the superdelegates have some heavy thinking to do.
Michigan and Florida should step up right now and schedule a re-do primary one week after the last of the existing primaries. It would be deliciously ironic if being sent to the rear of the line produced the deciding influence they were looking for by butting in early.
I agree with David that we cannot seat the delegates from the original illegitimate primaries in those 2 states. If they are to have a voice, it needs to be a re-do.
First and foremost is the legacy of the Bush administration which includes not only an unpopular war but a deep-seated unease amongst many Americans that the country they know and love has been transformed under Bush into an ugly and unrecognizable parody of its former self. The desire to undo that damage is strong and it has driven people to the polls and to paying attention to the race.
The fact that for the first time in a long time the presidential race has no incumbent, neither a president nor a vice-president seeking the nomination, makes for a more wide-open race. This is evidenced by the fact that presumed front runners in both parties have hit serious road-blocks. Guiliani and Romney both seemed like odds-on favourites to be chasing the Republican nomination down to the wire and they are out of the race while previously all-but declared dead John McCain seems to have won everything but the hearts of his party's conservative wing. Obama's resurgence over Clinton is also a surprise.
The fact that the Democratic party is now sure to present either a woman or a black man to voters, a historic first, is also generating excitement within both those demographic groups.
A smaller, but not all together insignificant, factor is the emergence of senators, rather than governors, as the leading candidates in both parties. This is an unusual development and, particularly in the Democratic party, makes the participation of the super-delegates (largely senators and congressmen) even more crucial.
Interesting time to be sure.
And excellent article on a timely subject! I tend to agree with you that if Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, the nomination is hers. However, the polls have yet to open in those states. If there is a split, the fight till the convention will be intense and exhaustive!
When assessing candidates, the comments of most people convince me that most overstate to themselves the ability of a candidate under our form of government to make massive changes. The parliamentary systems are more suited to radical change. Our founders wanted to insure that change was the will of the people over long periods of time and that a single election could not do that much damage. Therefore the cumbersome and inefficient practice they installed. They had lived where efficiency in government was a king and they did not like efficient government!
What's up with the Clinton tax records? Why won't they disclose those? Why isn't the media talking this up?
I believe that delegates from Michigan and Florida have to stay out of it now. If Michigan has so many problems, why on earth would they move up their primary - knowing this would invalidate their delegate count? They have to lie in the bed they've made - or what point is there to having rules?
There was a great article in the Houston Chronicle the other day. Delegates are apportioned by senatorial district, based on previous voting records. Largely black, urban districts have the distinction of being the most loyal democratic voters in what has become a very republican state. The bottom line is HC could win the popular vote but Obama could take home dmore delegates.
".....but Obama is much younger, with a greater future ahead of him."
Not If he accepts the VP position. It is the kiss of death. Does anyone remember Dan Quayle? The idea that Obama can somehow "succeed" HC is a risky notion with little historical precedent to support it.
There is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't emerging there. If the delegates from those states are not seated, a lot of democratic citizens are denied their right to have a voice in their representation. If they are seated, since they went to Clinton, there will be outcries about the fairness of that! Just why those two states decided to make the changes is anyone's guess but it has caused a turmoil.
What do you think is in the Clinton tax records that is the publics business? I sure don't want to dig through their entire tax records! Or McCain's or Obama's either!
If it gets fierce in the rest of the primary campaign, that is good! If a candidate cannot stand up to that they have no chance against the Republican machine for the general election. If Either candidate has holes or weaknesses that can be exposed by the opponent, this is the time to bring them out, not three weeks before the general election!
I believe both candidates can stand up to whatever comes down the pike, but we'll see.
Bringing Quayle into the equation is like putting a sparrow in with turkeys! George W Bush was a vice president and won on his own. Johnson won on his own after being vice president and Truman won on his own. Even Gore should have won and did win the popular vote but not the supreme court vote!
Being a vice president, for a strong candidate originally, is not a kiss of death but a springboard to success!
Johnson and Truman received the nomination and won as incumbant presidents not VP's.
1960 - Nixon loses
1968 - Humphery loses
1976 - Ford loses
1984 - Mondale loses
2000 - Al Gore loses
I would further point out that every two term president since WW II has been succeeded by the candidate of the other party except Reagan/G. Bush the First.
That's very true, however, they got there! And Al Gore's loss was with a majority of the popular vote.
However, I don't believe that there is any "rule" here worth a plugged nickle! The "rule" was that every president elected on the zero year died in office unitl Ronald Regan. Remember that one.
Remember, that for every "rule" there is the exception. I believe that the vice presidency is a valid step toward the presidency and that if not, it is an accomplishment of which one can be proud.
I can see that some are saying things similar to this...I am just rephrasing a little...afterall it is just words! lol