Hillary Reality Check

In her speech last night Hillary Clinton touted her electoral victory in Ohio, pointing out that in recent history no President has been elected who did not win the Ohio primary. She also mentioned her victory in Rhode Island. She said Texas was close but was hopeful she would win the vote, which it looks like she has by a small margin. She did not mention her defeat in Vermont. She said her campaign would continue, apparently all the way to the Convention. Let's look at the reality of what happened in the four primary elections yesterday and where the process now stands.

Clinton had a huge early lead in the polls for Ohio. That lead shrunk over time as Obama became more known to voters. It is interesting that Clinton saved the line about Ohio primary victory as a Presidential pre-requisite until she actually won. Even she apparently was concerned she might lose the Ohio vote. Her peer group, older white women, delivered the victory, apparently somehow questionably identifying with the campaign struggle of a multi millionaire, high-powered attorney from middle class middle America who accompanied her husband on a political career in Arkansas that surprisingly led to eight years for her as First Lady, after which she relocated to New York in order to take a seat in the United States Senate. I suppose the secrecy of her income tax returns and of her White House records is intended to protect her voter base from realizing she is not really that much like them. According to the delegate selection formula, though Clinton had a fairly substantial electoral lead in Ohio, her delegate total will be only marginally larger than Obama's.

Rhode Island and Vermont are small states, but the electoral vote from either of them could be enough one year to decide a close election (though not in 2008, which I expect to be quite favorable to the Democrats). It was not nice of Hillary to snub Vermont in her comments, just because voters there rejected her readily. Fact is, the two states are a wash.

In Texas, where at one time she had a comfortable lead in the polls, Hillary prevailed due to the Hispanic vote, supposedly in part because she and Bill spent a time registering Hispanic voters there one summer back in their school days. But, because of the formula for allocation of delegates and because Texas also was choosing some by caucus, at which Obama does better, the expectancy is that the slim electoral lead of Clinton will be reversed into a delegate lead for Obama.

So Clinton will continue her campaign. But of the remaining states, it appears Obama will do better than Clinton, and it is highly unlikely Clinton will able to surpass him in delegate count. The best she can hope for is to win the Pennsylvania primary fairly convincingly. It is a closed primary and supposedly Obama has not won one of those, at least one that counted for delegates [he won the beauty contest closed primary here in Washington State]. To me that confirms that Obama has broader appeal, attracting support of independents that Clinton cannot.

Recently Clinton has run negative ads attacking the ability of Obama to handle a security crisis. Never mind that the biggest crisis Hillary has had to deal with was the improper placement of the sex organ of her husband. The Clinton campaign will do whatever it takes to win, regardless of what it does to the Democratic Party or to the country. Obama will defend, but not stoop to the Clinton attack level. That is the fundamental character difference between the two and that is a large part of the appeal of Obama. Now that McCain has locked up the GOP nomination, all attention will be on the Democrats, but Clinton will not use the free attention to put the Democrats ahead of McCain. Instead she will use it to sow doubts about the suitability of Obama. It is one thing to say she is better than him, but quite different to say he is not up to the task.

The Clinton approach is divisive. She clearly thinks in terms of red states and blue states, playing right into the hands of Republican long term strategy. Obama thinks in terms of one America, offering the genuine hope for change for the better that has attracted so many young people to his brand of Democratic politics.

One thing clear is that the Democratic Party process for selecting its nominee is not truly democratic. The super delegates represent the hypocritical compromise too often made in democracies, giving inside elites a power to override the voice of the people. The Republican approach of winner take all mirrors the electoral college process, so is more predictive of Presidential election prospects. As an advocate for the elimination of the electoral college, I would like to see the Democrats go to a process where the candidate who amasses the greatest popular vote in the primaries becomes the nominee. That leaves open the question of how to schedule the primaries, one time of national voting or a series of regional or State votes.

In scheduling sequential primary voting, conflicts between the national and state parties need to be avoided, to prevent rogue primaries like those in Florida and Michigan. In order not to disenfranchise voters in those two states and because the contest between Clinton and Obama is fairly close, elections will probably be rescheduled in both. Ironically, the two states who jumped the gun to be able to play a decisive role before Super Tuesday, may now be placed at the end of the sequence and play a decisive role from that position.

The fact is neither candidate can win without the super delegates. By convention time Obama will have the lead in popular vote, delegates and number of states won, all of which he will argue mean the super delegates should confirm him. Clinton will argue the supers should consider the big states that she won as more important and anoint her. Each will argue that they are a better match up against McCain, Obama because of his appeal to independents, new voters and anti-Clinton moderates, and Clinton because of her appeal to older white women who are faithful voters, Hispanics reluctant to vote for an African-American and those who see Obama as inexperienced.

In spite of talk of friendship between Hillary and Barack, I do not see either being the running mate of the other. I think Barack should choose Bill Richardson, who would provide the Hispanic and experience factors to the ticket. Since the only way I see Hillary getting nominated is if the super delegates override the vote of the people, I don't even want to consider who she might choose for a running mate.