- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I just went to your delegate counter. Even if Clinton wins 60% of the vote in the remaining contests, Obama would still lead her in the vote total if you count Michigan and Florida as is. Clinto would have 1720 delegates. Obama would have 1790 delegates.
This does assume that Michigan's undecided delegation votes for Obama, and since Obama's campaign oversaw the selection of the undecided delegates, this is probably the case. A much more likely scenario would make Obama even closer.
Allowing Michigan and Florida's delegations to be seated "as is" will solve a lot of problems, yet still won't really change the outlook of the nomination process. Not seating these delegations will cause the Democrats great harm come November, These are both must win states, and Florida is a very close call right now.
Yes, I know "the rules are rules" bit, but there really is no rule that states a state loses its entire delegation if they don't hold the primary according to the calendar. Florida and Michigan both complained bitterly about their placement so late in the process. They argued that they were large states with diverse populations and both are "must win" states for the Democrats.
Instead, the Democrats decided that Nevada would be the early state, and that California, New York, and New Jersey would be moved ahead. The Democratic leadership's decision (which has a lot of merit) was poorly carried out. Instead, it became a game of chicken between Michigan, Florida, and the Democratic leadership on who would budge first.
The nuclear option the Democratic leadership took was a very poor decision. The Republicans did a 50% reduction, and if the Democratic leadership took the same position, there would be no issue today. And, the rules do give the leadership the ability to strip a state's delegation from between 50% to 100% in case of flagrant violations of the nominating process. A 50% option was on the table and could have been employed.
I also don't mind if Clinton is in the race and it goes to the convention officially undecided. Every primary race adds several tens of thousands registered Democrats to the voters roles. Every primary adds millions of dollars of new donor money to the Democratic coffers. Come November, these new Democrats will once again give generously and are more likely to turn out in November.
As for the convention: It will be the biggest summer block buster on TV if no candidate is the official winner when the convention starts. Tens of millions of Americans will tune in and listen to the Democrats give their speeches and positons on various issues. This will compare nicely to the snoozefest that will be the Republican convention.
Will it hurt the Democrats in November if the party is "divided"? Depends whether the loser of the nomination gives a strong and hearty endorsement of the winner. I see no reason why this won't be the case. If Obama is the winner, Clinton will be going back to the Senate where she will have to heal the rift between her and many of her colleagues who supported Obama over her. A strong endorsement will certainly help that respect and improve her influence in the Senate. Plus, she would rather be in the Senate under a Democratic President than a Republican one.
If Clinton is the winner, Obama will probably be on the Ticket for Veep. Obama is really not happy in the Senate, and being fairly young, will put him as a strong front runner for 2012. He'll only be 56 by then and will be able to claim the experience which his opponents say he's lacking.
If Obama is not on the ticket, it is probably because he prefers a cabinet position rather than Veep. He'll certainly won't want to do anything to harm the Democrats this time even if he does not get the nomination. Whatever the case, playing the spoiler and being able to be blamed for a McCain presidency will hurt his future chances for a presidential run.
Will Obama and Clinton able to put the past behind them? Probably. Both have shown the ability to put past animosities behind them. Both were close colleagues in the Senate before the whole campaign and they have almost identical voting records since Obama came into the Senate in 2004.
