Once said to be on an easy path to coronation, Sen. Hillary Clinton now is locked in an uphill battle, not just against a tough competitor, but a phenomenon.
That reversal of fortune was driven home yesterday not just by the fact Sen. Barack Obama won all the Potomac regional primaries in a walk, following on his weekend sweep of primaries and caucuses, for eight straight victories and a lead in delegates, but by the impressive margins he racked up along the way.
Obama is an excellent orator, an extremely likable and capable campaigner, and has obviously put together a first-class campaign organization. What’s more, there’s only modest distance between Obama and Clinton on the issues.
What we see as propelling the somewhat less experienced and untested front runner transcends the usual parameters of campaign-season traction. He’s become a rock star-like figure and vessel into which huge numbers of people are pouring their hopes and pent up desire for significant change.
There is a big, wide, deep and powerful public hunger for politics to be conducted differently and for government to be run differently.
The prospect is for the scandal-ridden, power-abusing, deceit-plagued final dregs of what began as the so-called Reagan revolution to be flushed away along with Bush administration dishonesty, arrogance and incompetence.
Clinton is reportedly pinning her hopes on winning in Texas and Ohio next week. We find it hard to imagine large numbers of people from the state that gave us Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove and George W. Bush turning out for Clinton, but in this presidential primary season almost anything can happen.
With or without the victories she’s planning on, Clinton’s path ahead seems daunting. Obama’s edge extends to funding and momentum — lots of momentum.
Daunting or not, though, we won’t make the mistake of counting Clinton out early. She might not be a phenom, but she’s as determined, tough and resilient as anyone in politics.
SW,
Well written post. I also agree with you that it’s too early to count Clinton out. For the sake of the Democratic party, I just hope the losing candidate, whether it’s Obama or Clinton, realizes when it’s time to get out. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a clear consensus as to what criteria would be used.
Clinton seems to be staking her claim on Super Delegates and wins in big states. Obama is claiming the popular vote, number of states won, and number of pledged delegates among other things. Both of them have valid arguments, but each should come to a mediated agreement as to when he or she will drop out.
Personally, I believe Super Delegates should be done away with (in future elections). The concept of Super Delegates reeks of elitism. The idea that Super Delegates can supersede the will of the people is simply wrong. Essentially, Super Delegates have two votes: one popular vote like everyone else and one “super” vote. Not very democratic if you ask me.
Anyway, the voting trends tend to favor Obama, and I believe he will win the total popular vote, total pledged delegates, total states won, and the nomination IF he wins two of the four remaining big states: Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. Unfortunately, he may not have enough delegates to officially claim victory. Regardless, Clinton should concede under these circumstances.
Unfortunately, Clinton appears to be working to have the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention. This only serves to undermine the process. Sure, the population from these states should have a say, but not according to the results in January. Rules were broken and there should be consequences. Perhaps the DNC, instead of voiding the delegates, should have said their delegates would count only if these states agreed to hold new primaries at the end of the primary schedule in June. In the end, this arrangement might have allowed Florida and Michigan to be king or queen maker after all.
Personally, I believe the idea that Iowa and New Hampshire must go first is very undemocratic and should be changed. The DNC and RNC should agree to regional contests that rotate the first primaries every four years so that each region of the US will eventually get to go first. Hopefully this would cut costs for both the candidates and the states. If the states don’t abide by the rules, so be it. The Supreme Court tends to come down in favor of the political committees over the states. So if states decide to break the rules, they should be punished. Ultimately, this is bad for the individual voters, but they also have power. They can vote against those state representatives who voted to break the rules, or they can appeal to their respective political parties. Personally, I would leave the DNC or RNC if they failed to rotate the primary schedule. Who cares if you disenfranchise Iowa and New Hampshire. The rest of the United States has been disenfranchised for many years.
However, IF Clinton sweeps the remaining big states by 60-40, enough momentum may shift to her to win total pledged delegates and the total popular vote (her only loss being in number of states won). In this case, Obama should concede.
Clearly, Obama has the advantage at this stage, but things could change…
TA, thanks for the kind of comment every serious blogger hopes to get, not because of a high level of agreement, but because it’s on topic, well informed, thoughtful and constructive.
The high level of agreement extends to more than you probably know. The following is from my April 15, 2007, post, U.S. past due for major electoral system reform.
In a comment at Political Realm on this, I added, “But, rotate the regions, so the one that went last last time goes first this and so on.”
You’re right about the need to do away with super delegates, at least as voting entities with double clout. If the party wants to have some sort of VIP club for distinguished members, as a way of honorin them, I have no problem with that.
Unfortunately, the middle of a presidential election year is not the time anything can or should be done about the existing setup, faulty though it is.
Florida and Michigan Democrats should be given a chance to vote again, late in the process but not necessarily at the end.
My biggest worry at this point is a situation in which Clinton or Obama supporters, depending on who doesn’t win, end up sitting on their hands, angry about any or all of several perceived slights or disadvantages. I especially worry about Obama’s younger and in some cases less politically experienced and more-emotional supporters going off in a snit because their hero didn’t make it.
I think in this race more than any in four decades, it’s crucial that leading Democrats regularly impress on their supporters who the real opposition is, what the stakes really are, and why it’s absolutely vital to support the party’s nominee, whoever that turns out to be.
A de facto third Bush term must not be this country’s fate.
SW,
“A de facto third Bush term must not be this country’s fate.”
My concern is that many Democrats don’t take the time to understand independents’ (and even some Democrats’) frustrations with business as usual. Business as usual often means settling for the lesser of two evils. The two-party system is seriously flawed, but many Democrats and Republicans continue to ignore this at their own peril.
Voting along party lines as a matter of loyalty (or to send a message) is asinine. Many people are sick of the partisanship in Washington which only serves to alienate voters and leave people without real-life solutions, only the appearance of solutions. Both Democrats and Republicans need to seriously consider the reasons why more and more people are registering as independents. And not just for the sake of their parties, but for the sake of the country.
Democratic and Republican politicians often vote along party lines to send messages to the other party DESPITE what might be best for the country as a whole. I realize politicians have local constituents they must answer to. Therein lies part of the problem. Politicians should consider the whole of America as their constituency, not just their state or district. Aren’t we all in this together? Not according to loyal Democrats and Republicans. All too often it’s US vs. THEM. Many people are sick of this mentality.
The fact that perhaps you and many others can’t understand why some might view Hillary Clinton as a de facto third Bush term is also part of the problem. One of the reasons I will not vote for Clinton is because I genuinely believe the war authorization vote was a an attempt to appear strong on national security. I admire Kucinich for voting against it and Obama and Gravel for publicly denouncing it. And I even admire Edwards for having enough common sense to admit his mistake. And no, I would still not vote for Clinton if she apologized. It goes much deeper than that. For a better idea of why I will not vote for Clinton, please read the following article: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman
If I choose not to vote for Clinton (if she is the nominee), it is not because I am trying to send you or the Democrats a message, it is because I sincerely do not believe she will do what’s best for ALL of America. Yes, she might do more for America than McCain, but I refuse to choose between what I consider to be the lesser of two evils. Instead, I will vote for the candidate whom I believe will do what is best for America (I would love to be able to vote for Kucinich or Gravel). And why must you be a millionaire or born-again Christian to have a serious shot at the presidency?
If Obama doesn’t get the nomination, I’m still not sure whom I will vote for, but it certainly will not be Clinton or McCain. Others may vote against Clinton out of hate or spite, but my vote for someone else is based on principle.
Look, I’ll be the first to admit that Obama may very well become the thing he campaigned against, and I may regret my vote for him (if I get the chance).
I’ve been an independent since I registered to vote in 1987, and I (along with many others) have lived our entire voting lives with either a Bush or Clinton in the White House (20 years, 28 if you include Bush I as VP). My memories of all their presidencies is not too fond. I must admit the Bushes were worse, but that doesn’t mean I should settle for Hillary just so we can keep the Republicans out of office.
I’d prefer to have a socialist in the White House who puts the interests of the people as a whole ahead of that of money and corporations.
SW, I apologize for my long comment, and please understand that I am not trying to convince you or others that my position is correct, because it isn’t. I’ve tried to be as reasonable as possible, but my position is not provable one way or the other. I simply used this as an opportunity to express my concerns and opinions about the upcoming election, and I respect your opinions and criticisms.
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Thomas Jefferson
TA wrote:
By politicians, I take you to mean U.S. senators and representatives. The authors of our Constitution designed it so our congressional representatives would represent their states and districts, putting them first most of the time, and so that the president would have the whole country as a constituency. It’s not a perfect system, but no one has ever come up with a better one.
There are times, especially where national security, including economic security, is concerned, that members of Congress should put what’s best for the country as a whole ahead of narrow parochial interests. Fortunately, in times of danger, most have done that. But to expect most to do that nearly all the time is unrealistic. The system isn’t designed that way  for sound reasons.
Hitting on the two-party system as basically no good, TA wrote:
You are right. In a nation of 300 million highly diverse people and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of interests all spread across 50 states and several territories, obviously, everyone can’t always get their heart’s-desire first choice for a presidential candidate, much less for a president.
So, all through the process, people must make the best choice they can from what’s available. That’s just a fact of life.
I am not a Democrat out of blind loyalty. I’m a fairly decent student of history with some economics thrown in. I’m well aware of how and why the Great Depression occurred, who got hurt and who got even more wealth and power because of it, and why.
I’ve taken close account of the leaders both major parties have given us, what they stood for and what they did. I strongly prefer the party of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton to the party of Coolidge, Harding, Hoover, Reagan and two Bushes. (And then, of late, there’s Atwater, Rove, DeLay, Gingrich, Cunningham, Libby, Abramoff and a bunch of other crooked lowlifes.)
I strongly prefer the party that gave us the New Deal, including Social Security, rural electrification, the National Labor Relations Act, etc.; gave us the G.I. Bill of Rights; put forth the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe; helped make the U.N. a reality; gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965; and so much more  fair, helpful, good and deccent things.
Measuring what Democrats have stood for and done against what Republicans have stood for and done, I find Democrats consistently better  much better.
Does that mean I think all Democrats are choir boys and angels, and incapable of being wrong? No. Does it mean I think all Republicans are always no good and wrong about everything? No.
Does it mean Democrats get my first loyalty? Yes.
Considering how Bush and his Republican enablers in Congress  the same ones who for six long years exercised NO oversight over the worst, most incompetent president in U.S. history  have done real damage to our democratic system, trampling the Constitution, violating statutory law, making a mockery of the rules and traditions of both houses of Congress, I urge you to think very carefully at this point in our history about the need to keep Republicans out of power. It is a very sound basis for deciding who will get your vote.
Unfortunately for them and for us all, Republicans have once again proven themselves to be that bad.
SW,
As for the constituencies, I understand how the Constitution was designed to work, but that misses the point. The point is that politicians need to think globally when they act locally, and I just don’t see a lot of that going on. And sometimes they don’t even act locally when they think globally.
Our representatives and senators should be the best and brightest we have. They should be intelligent enough to make decisions for “we the people” that are in the best interest of “we the people.” Our leaders should guide us along the path of collectivism, not individualism. If our leaders misuse their power or enough of the masses object to their policies, “we the people” can either vote against them or revolt. Even Thomas Jefferson said a revolt every now and then was healthy.
Personally, I see the Republican and Democratic parties as greedy, power-hungry organizations with strong ties to the corporate world.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
SW,
As for business as usual, again you miss the point. If elections were better regulated by the government and campaign finance reform really had teeth, then more people could afford to run for president and “we the people” would have more choices. Not only could more people afford to run, but they would also receive equal exposure to the masses. Your own party sat on its hands while Kucinich and Gravel tried to get equal time and access to debates. Are you okay with this? Do you understand why many voters feel so disenfranchised?
Why must you be a millionaire or born-again Christian to have a serious shot at the presidency?
SW said, “So, all through the process, people must make the best choice they can from what’s available. That’s just a fact of life.”
Again, we will have to agree to disagree.
BTW, your quote sounds a lot like Rumsfeld saying you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wished you had.
It may well be a fact of life, but that doesn’t mean its right.
TA, you want campaign finance reform so people like Kucinich have a fighting chance? Well, so do I. The way corporate media treated him and Gravel was unfair and inexcusable.
I want publicly financed campaigns, where everyone pays a small amount along with their taxes, and candidates of both parties are limited to the public funds provided.
This is the kind of thing liberal Democrats have been calling for for years. If Democrats get control of the government it could happen. You can be sure it won’t happen under Republicans.
Republicans know only about a third of the public supports their policies. They have to make up the difference with massive amounts of money with which to buy attack ads, along with collateral support from the right-wing noise machine. They have to trash and demonize their opponents. They have to lie like champs during campaigns. All that is sometimes not enough, so they are desperate to come up with another extremely attractive and likable candidate such as Ronald Reagan. They’re running scared this year because the money hasn’t been coming in the way it usually does and they don’t have a Reagan clone for a candidate.
All the more reason why I expect them to try harder than ever to suppress voting by Americans who usually don’t vote Republican.
Keep in mind also that one of the things movement conservatives hold against McCain is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.
You see a rising tide of independent voters. I see more and more people registering as Democrats and voting in Democratic primaries and caususes. News stories confirm this is happening.