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.
The ONLY candidate for President that is NOT A SOCIALIST more or less is Ron Paul.. Only one choice..
“I think the answer is yes, and fours years of abject failure will follow.”
Failure, although tragic, is expected, but infiltration of the WH by Al-Qaeda will be disasterous.
Sure America will elect a black president if he is the nominee. Why not???????????????????
Not only poorly written, but factually creative - unless I missed a MAJOR announcement by McCain.
Actually if right-wing groups attack Obama the left will discount the attacks as well as rally behind Obama. Nothing reinforces a leftist's credentials more than upset conservatives.
Latent prejudices is a leftist problem. They try to throw their uncomfortable thoughts onto the right. But Obama doesn't need any Republicans to vote for him and isn't counting on that.
Obama's does not have a white problem. The prejudice problem is mostly with Asian and Hispanic Democrats.
No.
Barack Obama is just as much white as he is black. He is bi-racial individual, not a “black” one. Therefore, if elected he won’t be the first black President.
Of course the question itself assumes and presumes that America is a racist society in which blacks cannot succeed. Were that true, Barack Obama would never have been elected to the US Senate or gotten as far as he has and Oprah Winfey, one of the richest women in the world who is black, would be scrubbing floors for minimum wage. Liberal idiots and scumbags who consistently accuse many Americans of being racists and bigots for not embracing certain black politicians, always leave out the fact that their lack of support comes from the fact that they are liberal dopes who support whole hog the sick, twisted, and diseased left-wing agenda and are encouraged to use race and accusations of racism as a cover to divert criticism of their stupid and warped ideology and kill debate by accusing critics of racist motives.
I’d gladly take common sense conservative libertarian economist and philosopher Professor Walter Williams over Barack Obama, who unlike Obama, is all black. His support of strict constructionist, Constitutionally based limited government and economic and individual liberty is what is attractive to me, not his color.
Uh, Eastern Michigan University is not exactly the Ivy League...
...”Liberal idiots and scumbags who consistently accuse many Americans of being racists and bigots for not embracing certain black politicians, always leave out the fact that their lack of support comes from the fact that they are liberal dopes who support whole hog the sick, twisted, and diseased left-wing agenda and are encouraged to use race and accusations of racism as a cover to divert criticism of their stupid and warped ideology and kill debate by accusing critics of racist motives.”...
Will you please tell us what you really think and stop beating around the bush...
Liberals are obsessed with race and sex.
I’d vote Sowell or Williams in a SECOND, no qualms. And they’re “blacker” than half-baked Obama.
Damn, I wish 1 of those men was running instead of the mealy-mouthed “white”-washed lamos we have on the GOP stage now.
The only reason the liberal (though likeable) Obama is a serious democrat candidate is because he is black. It’s certainly not because of his accomplishments.
If he is defeated along the way, racism won’t be the reason that many people vote for someone else... or don’t vote at all.
ROFL!
...I’ve been trying to explain to that Obama (any Democrat, almost) just means SOCIALISM!!!! And, will cost them their freedom and livlihoods.
&&&
Sorry, I think you are wasting your time. What is important to them is that he sounds good and has charisma. They really are not paying attention to the substance of what he says; they just like to dance along.
‘Will America elect a black president?’—sure—Ken Blackwell.
Man, you have them down!
I'd really like to meet the idiot who formulated this poll question.
“Unlike liberals, I don’t look at Obama’s skin color first.”
I agree but, I do thing they got the *bitch* part correct.
But a socialist president would suck.
An American President isn’t, or should I say SHOULD NOT be selected for “style” or a “statement”.
Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are confusing the presidential race with American Idol....
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.