Posted on 02/11/2008 12:22:06 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
People worldwide -- and indeed, most Americans -- are under the impression that whichever party candidate has the most delegates at the end of the primary elections is assured the party nomination for president. And who can blame them?
In a typical year, one candidate will emerge from the primary campaign with a majority of the delegates, and he will have the nomination secured. But this year's race is unprecedented; a woman and black man, running neck to neck against each other to try and reach the magic number of 2025 delegates to lock the nomination.
There are 4,049 total delegates to the Democratic National Convention (DNC) -- 3,253 pledged delegates (to be won in the state primaries and caucuses) and 796 superdelegates (consisting of party bosses, sitting governors, former governors, big city mayors, US Senators and congressmen and former presidents). Superdelegates are free to vote for a candidate, and withdraw their votes anytime.
Of the 3,253 pledged delegates, over half are already split between Clinton (944) and Obama (1009), with Obama holding an unsteady lead of 65 delegates (as of 11:30 am EST, Feb. 9). With the race being so close, it appears impossible for either candidate to get 2025 delegates after all the primaries and caucuses are over.
This scenario empowers the superdelegates to decide on the nominee -- a doomsday spectacle of a brokered DNC in Denver, Colorado (August 25-28), reminiscent of the 1968 Chicago convention, with its violence in the streets and vitriol inside the hall. The images of a fractured, out-of-control party helped sink Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and McGovern in 1972.
Make no mistake; this spectacle could unfold at the DNC in August. Under this scenario, should the superdelegates support Clinton unfairly, they would risk alienating millions of young Americans whom Obama enthused with his message of hope and change. Should they shift their alliance and back Obama instead, it would be interpreted as a betrayal of long-term friendship with the Clintons.
The consensus solution to this dilemma would be to nominate the candidate who appears to have the best chance to beat the Republican nominee John McCain in the general election.
Pundits and latest nationwide polls tilt towards Obama when pitted against McCain (48% vs. 41%), as opposed to Clinton against McCain (46% vs. 46%). But both Obama and Clinton come with "warts."
Clinton, on her part, carries considerable baggage from her eight years as first lady, including the stigma of the Monica Lewinsky scandal that plagued her husband's presidency -- and then there's the substantial block of voters who consider and see her as the most polarising public figure in the American political landscape.
What has McCain to say about Clinton? In a November rally, John McCain and the Republican audience laughed when a voter asked him how he planned to "beat the bitch." McCain replied: "I fully understand why many people don't like Clinton. I don't much like her myself. She seems calculating, cold, and overly ambitious." (The Week, November 30, 2007, Page-14).
Ryan Sager in the New York Post argues that McCain would be hard-pressed to steal centrist votes away from Obama, while, in a McCain – Clinton duel, most moderates and independents would gravitate towards him, leaving Hillary with little more than the Democrats liberal base. The prospect of another Clinton presidency will bring together the McCain hating conservatives because "there are fates worse than John McCain."
Obama, on his part, is a liability of a different dimension -- not only because he is black, but also because his middle name Hussein, taken from his Muslim Kenyan father, is the last name of Saddam Hussein.
The question many people are already grappling with is: "Is America ready for a black president, who also has a Muslim middle name?"
This dilemma hasn't yet caught up with the white Americans. Once nominated for the presidency, however, one thing is all but guaranteed -- that the Republicans' "dirt digging" and "mud slinging" machines will blitz the digital space and the news media with a relentless series of vicious and personal attacks against Obama, designed to arouse the latent prejudices of American voters.
Despite being 50% black and 50% white (American white mother), Obama is classified as black. He would still be classified as black if his parents' races were reversed.
Prior to 1960, different states followed different rules, including the 25% blackness (that would be Obama's grand children) rule, to classify people as black. The identifying criterion now is "one drop rule" -- one drop of black person's blood in your veins. Some Republican (religious extremists) internet bloggers and mainstream ultra-conservative columnists are already identifying him with Muslims because of his father, who was a non-practicing Muslim. So he has to overcome triple jeopardy -- black blood, Muslim blood, and his middle name.
The question remains: "Will Americans elect a woman, or a black man, as president?" According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans are much more likely to elect a woman or a black man as president than a Mormon or an old man. More interestingly, they'd rather be governed by a homosexual than an atheist.
These statistics, obviously, are prospective. People know, for example, that John McCain at 71 is not young; yet, his nomination for the presidency from GOP is all but a formality now. He has already announced that, if elected, he would serve only one term -- a self-imposed limit out of self-consciousness of old age.
Will the wave of youthful enthusiasm and passion, which has buoyed Obama's campaign to date be enough to propel him to the White House? It certainly seems possible. "Obamamania," however, reminds many seasoned Democrats of the tidal rushes of youthful energy that marked the McCarthy campaign in 1968, the McGovern campaign in 1972, the Jerry Brown campaign in 1992, and (to a lesser extent) the Howard Dean campaign in 2004.
Polls often reflect voters' attitude and sentiments, which can change in a split second at the instant of voting. Had this not happened in the New Hampshire and California primaries, Obama would have been well ahead of Clinton in delegate counts, with a momentum on his way to secure the nomination.
And therein lies the uncertainty -- the curious perversities of American elections in which young voters have, historically, shown uninhibited enthusiasms in primaries, but have neglected to vote in general elections. Their disillusionment with the candidates -- who focus more on mutual diatribes and negativities and less on policy differences -- may be the reason. Whatever it is that generates their apathy to voting, the trend is indisputable.
If Obama is the consensus nominee of the Democratic Party he will have to succeed in keeping his young supporters, disillusioned Republican crossovers, Reagan Democrats, and above all, the great majority of the independents, on board with his inspirational message of "hope and change" to win the race for the While House.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authors are, respectively, Professor (economics) and Adjunct (college of technology) at Eastern Michigan University, USA.
Unlike liberals, I don’t look at Obama’s skin color first.
It is beginning to look that way.
I thin the answer is yes, and fours years of abject failure will follow.
Conservatives like me will be blamed for decades.
“hope and change”
sounds real good...but what kind of hope and change are we talking about? Could you be a little more specific? Are you just another run of the mill politician pandering for votes?
Hope and change for socialism, I do not want!
Yes socialism....take from the capitalists ...and make every a ward of the state.
blah blah blah. yes we’re ready for a black president. or a female president, or even a black female pres.
a couple years ago condi prolly could’ve taken it, probably still could if she wanted to.
powell could’ve taken it in 2000.
i don’t think obama has much of a chance tho.
Put Tom Sowell up there and watch!!
Is a black guy running?
EXACTLY! I am having "discussions" with Facebook kids about Obama....more people here should get themselves a Facebook account and visit Facebook's SUPPORT OBAMA section. They really are a bunch of MUSH HEADS....whom I've been trying to explain to that Obama (any Democrat, almost) just means SOCIALISM!!!! And, will cost them their freedom and livlihoods.
With McCain as the Republican candidate, just ask me if I care.
The KKKlintoons don't have friends. Only stooges........
“This dilemma hasn’t yet caught up with the white Americans. Once nominated for the presidency, however, one thing is all but guaranteed — that the Republicans’ “dirt digging” and “mud slinging” machines will blitz the digital space and the news media with a relentless series of vicious and personal attacks against Obama, designed to arouse the latent prejudices of American voters.”
Sure, of course we have always been the Party intent in maintaing the Blacks and other minorities in their place, history has shown that! Sarcasm
That the interest of the Clinton will expose Barak to more destructive personal information, should not be considered at all.
Black? Why not.
Muslim? That is where I have reservations.
McCain: I think Senator Obama's budget goals will be difficult to attain.
Obama: I disagree.
The Spin:
MSM-1: We're you surprised by McCain's vicious attack on Senator Obama's ability to handle complicated budgets? Did you sense a racial aspect to that?
MSM-2: I did. It was unmistakable. It was almost like McCain said -- and I think that we saw a hint of his famous temper there -- that blacks can't handle money and that's why they're so poor. But I thought Senator Obama handled it beautifully.
MSM-1: Absolutely. He really turned it back on McCain. He's a powerful speaker and you know the crowd was just loving it.
But also unlike liberals, you can see that other than skin color, there's no "there" there. If he were not black, he would not even be taken as seriously as Kucinich by a political party. He's got nothing but skin color to get him noticed. And a shallow, skin-deep bunch of donkeys might just make this "show about nothing" their nominee.
He is running a campagn that completely conceals this behind populist speeches, a youthful demeanor, or bright catch phrases and cliches that really say nothing as to his true positions and convictions.
He, the DNC, and ultimately the MSM are counting on the X-Generation and M-TV generation to not care about any of that...to only care how he "looks" and "sounds".
He sounds so positive, he says he cares, he says he will reach out...and of course, best of all...he says he's for change.
Well, Hitler changed Germnay and its Weimar Republic in the 1930s and he spoke positively and made Germans proud again...but after tens of millions of their own dead, a ruined nation, and tens of millions of others dead, clearly the change was not for the good History is repleat with examples of nations and people's who go down such paths and rarely learn from history.
I hope and pray to God that the people of this nation will not do the same and will avoid being taken in by this energtic snake oil salesman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.