It was a disappointing night for Obama-backers, but I have to hand it to Sen. Hillary Clinton for refusing to be written off by the pundits and for rebounding so strongly in Ohio, while holding on for a tight win in Texas. Now what?
I actually think Hillary has regained the upper hand in securing the nomination--but the question is, with the delegate count so close and so few primaries left, how will she pull it off, and how soon? And will the delay and continued infighting hand the election to the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain?
If Sen. Clinton wins Pennsylvania next month--which I expect her to do, since the state tends to run more conservative, like Ohio--the two should be about dead even on delegates as of late April.
By winning last night's biggest races, Clinton should put a stop to the high-profile and very damaging defections by super-delegates. It also punctures Obama's aura of invulnerability and historical inevitability.
She can also build a case that since she won all the big states--New York, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas and (soon to be) Pennsylvania--she deserves the nomination.
It's really too bad that Florida and Michigan defied the party leadership and had their primaries disqualified for holding elections before Super Tuesday. These are two key states in the general election, and to leave them out in such a close primary race is a terrible development for the Democrats.
I would like to see a "do-over," with both states holding new primaries in mid-to-late May or early June to settle this once and for all.
I don't agree at all with the calls of Clinton's campaign staff to seat the delegates from both states (not surprising, since she "won" both), as neither candidate campaigned there because of the party's excommunication. Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.
However, I suspect Clinton would win both states in a do-over--and perhaps that should be considered when picking the nominee, since I doubt the party will "reward" either state that went rogue by giving them another shot--with the likelihood that the outcome could decide the nomination.
John Edwards is another wild card. By "suspending" rather than formally ending his campaign, he retained his delegates. While he can't assign them to anyone else, his endorsement would go a long way towards convincing them to go with his choice. He has 60 or so delegates, I believe, which could make a big difference in a photo finish.
What would it take to get Edwards' backing? Perhaps a promise to appoint him Secretary of Health and Human Services, charged with implementing a universal health insurance plan. Since he came up with the first and most comprehensive health care reform plan, he would be a perfect choice for that job in either administration.
The bad news is that while the Democrats fight on to choose a nominee, McCain has all this down time to get some badly needed rest (he is 71, after all), raise some desperately needed funds, put together a bigger and better campaign organization, build his support among skeptical conservatives, and still take his shots against both Obama and Clinton without having to actually debate either head on until fall.
I still think Obama has a much better shot of beating McCain than does Clinton, despite the experience factor. (In fact, McCain had the best line of the week when, in response to the ad war started by Clinton over who was most qualified to "answer the phone" when it rings during a crisis at 3 a.m. in the White House, he quipped that obviously, given his 50 years of experience in the military and Congress, he was the most qualified of the three.)
I continue to believe only Obama can beat McCain in any of the Southern states. He would mobilize blacks and young voters in record numbers, which could put him over the top in key swing states such as Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania--yet those two voting blocks might mope and stay home on Election Day if their hero fails to secure the nomination. Plus Obama doesn't have the baggage Clinton must carry.
Would those factors be moot if Obama were to be the vice presidential candidate? Would a Clinton-Obama ticket be unbeatable? Perhaps, but I don't see Clinton risking being upstaged by someone she sees as a charismatic upstart.
What do you folks think?
Comments (8)
Stopping the bleeding is not the same as a winning, although it's better than bleeding to death.
Until last weekend, I might have agreed with you that Obama had a better chance against McCain than Mrs. Clinton. Then, over the weekend, the pressies finally got around to tossing him a few tough questions, and the guy litterally cut and run. Me thinks this lovely fellow might have a glass jaw. Better the Democrats find it out now than later.
I like McCain's chances against either of these two--both of whom, in my opinion, have the potential to make Bush look like Winston Churchill.
Posted by Charlie | March 5, 2008 10:40 AM
Posted on March 5, 2008 10:40
The question you have to ask is, are more Americans wishing for change to get rid of poliitics as usual AND get us out of Iraq, or is experience and the threat of terrorism more important?
If change is the order of the day, Obama will probably beat McCain. If on the other hand, experience is more important, then I believe McCain will win over Clinton hands down.
Either way, I guess I don't see Clinton beating McCain at all.
I think Clinton's presence will stir up the Republicans to vote against her, and Obama's absence will keep the potential first-time voters and disenfranchised folks at home--unless he can be persuaded to ACTIVELY campaign for her, or run with her, which probably won't happen.
Posted by David | March 5, 2008 11:25 AM
Posted on March 5, 2008 11:25
Sam, I beleive you have analyzed the situation very well.
I would add that Sen. Clinton may be perceived as carrying less "baggage" now that she has been given the opportunity to demonstrate some of her considerable talent and intellect in the public forum.
Also, I suspect that Sen. McCain may not be a stellar debater in a one-on-one forum, and will show himself to be somewhat one-dimensional.
Posted by Edward Kalbaugh | March 5, 2008 11:51 AM
Posted on March 5, 2008 11:51
"It's the economy, stupid," as one pundit was fond of saying in the past, and it is as true today. People vote their pocketbook. Economic issues matter.
McCain's soft underbelly is that he knows nothing about the economy and admits it. Economy will trump security issues as long as there are no major headline events caused by terrorists before the election.
Republicans are going to be trounced this election because the Bush policies have left us and our grandchildren buried in debt.
The Democrats are heading toward a brokered convention. It will be messy, backroom bickering stuff, but ultimately, it will be the candidate who is most persuasive with the super delegates that will win.
The Clintons have been there before. I'd give them a few more cards to play than Obama, particularly if Clinton can leverage the Florida/Michigan preferences (as registered in their uncounted primaries).
Can Clinton beat McCain in the general election? Go back to paragraph one above. It was her husband who turned the economy around and left a surplus that Bush II squandered. People who remember that will vote to bring back that economic team.
Also, don't lose sight of that strong voter block called women, particularly middle-aged and older women who are more certain to turn out to vote.
Posted by Joan | March 5, 2008 12:19 PM
Posted on March 5, 2008 12:19
The one thing that was not brought up in the Texas election was how people other than Hispanic and Blacks voted.
Clinton took a little over 51% of the vote. She carried the Hispanic vote, which constitutes for 40-plus-percent of Texas voters. That means that other races voted for Obama over Clinton.
If Obama does win the nomination, he stands a good chance of beating McCain. If Clinton wins, McCain has the edge. Too many people I have talked to are tired of the same two families running the country for the last 20 years and are not in favor of extending it to 24 or 28.
Obama offers Edwards a high cabinet position or be his runing mate, that could seal the deal.
SAM RESPONDS:
I doubt Edwards wants to go with Veep route again--been there, done that--especially with a young president blocking his progress. I think the HHS job would be perfect and would allow him to craft what might amount to a new "New Deal" for Americans.
Stay tuned!
Posted by J R | March 5, 2008 12:42 PM
Posted on March 5, 2008 12:42
First, can Democrats afford to "disenfranchise" Michigan and Florida delegate voters in spite of their rogue activity? I think not.
Regarding Iraq and the candidates: When asked in a recent debate if he would consider re-entering Iraq, even Obama himself offered a "yes, for "National Security Reasons"--three words we hear a lot from the other side of the aisle.
Finally, with the Democrats jumping on the tax cut bandwagon this year in order to aid the economy (and look good in the polls), my feeling is the economy, as an issue, will implode for them.
Remember, the Dems have been stating for years how much they dislike the Bush tax cuts. For me, it's now a lack-of-credibility issue.
Besides, we are not in a recession; we haven't had 2 quarters of negative growth. We aren't even in a downturn yet. So, a non-starter...for me.
SAM RESPONDS:
I certainly don't want Michigan or Florida "disenfranchised," either, but to include them you must have a new primary--otherwise it is simply not fair. Obama would have had a totally different strategy in both states (including getting on the ballot in Michigan!) had he known the votes would be counted. He was told they would not be, and the Democratic Party cannot just back off that position. In any case, I think Hillary, in a do-over, would win both states.
As for the economy, while you are "technically" right about recession, the way voters feel at the polls is very important, as economics is as much psychology as it is pure numbers. As the Republicans know from playing the "9/11 card" constantly, people vote their fears, not their hopes, more often than not.
For that reason, McCain's frank admission that he doesn't know much about economics might come back to haunt him in November.
Posted by Sue | March 5, 2008 6:48 PM
Posted on March 5, 2008 18:48
The problem for Sen. Clinton is that the math is working against her.
Assuming she wins Pennsylvania, or even assuming she wins the remaining contests, the proportional system used by the Democrats to allocate delegates means she’d have to win by historic margins to gain any significant ground. (You can use Slate’s Delegate Calculator at http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/ to see how tough it would be.)
Of course, all this relates to pledged delegates. Since neither senator will be able to get the nomination based solely on pledged delegates, it’s going to be decided by the much-ballyhooed superdelegates.
Sen. Obama will argue that since he has the most pledged delegates, the supers should uphold “the will of the people” and give him the nod.
Sen. Clinton will counter with the argument that she’s won the states that will be important in November, and that she’s less vulnerable to Republican attacks as her skeletons have all long since been taken out of the closet.
Florida and Michigan may get a do-over, unless one candidate or the other drops out shortly after Pennsylvania. I can’t imagine the DNC wants to seat them, since doing so would signal that other states could move up their own primaries without fear of penalties, forcing Iowa and N.H. to move up theirs, and so on. We’d end up with primaries a year before the election.
One way or another, the Democratic Party would prefer this to be wrapped up quickly. A brokered convention would be a disaster for them, likely alienating half the party and hurting turnout in November.
They certainly don’t want to give the Republicans any more ammunition for the fall, and can’t be thrilled that Sen. McCain has what looks to be at least seven weeks to campaign and raise funds. I assume they’ll keep pushing the FEC/public funding issue against McCain, but that doesn’t seem to be gaining any traction.
Posted by Matt Brady | March 6, 2008 11:15 AM
Posted on March 6, 2008 11:15
Associated Press is running with a story this morning, headlined: "Dean Urges Do-Over Voting In Fla., Mich."
AP reports that: "Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted.
"All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.
Count on a do-over in early June, with Clinton likely to win both, thus securing the nomination, following her win in Pa. next month.
That will still give her plenty of time to regroup over the summer for the battle against McCain.
The question is, will she ask Obama to be her Veep??? And should she??? My answer on both counts would be yes.
Posted by Sam Friedman | March 6, 2008 1:12 PM
Posted on March 6, 2008 13:12