Obviously, it's a closely contested fight. Obama has a lead of roughly 700,000 in the popular vote, discounting Michigan and Florida. For those who have no problem with ignoring the agreed-upon rules and insist upon counting the two states votes as they currently stand, Obama leads by around 75,000 votes. Or course, they have to get their minds around the pesky fact that Obama didn't campaign in Florida. (I know, neither did Clinton, but she started this race with a huge lead in Florida, thanks to it's NY snowbirds and other seniors-laden demographics. Obama would inarguably have closed the gap, as he does in all states, by putting his superior organization on the ground and talking to people face-to-face.) And his name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Along with Biden, Edwards and Richardson, he agreed to forego the state as a result of Michigan's unsanctioned advancement of their primary's date. Absent her three main competitors, Clinton "won" the primary, defeating "Uncommitted" by 15%.
Delegate counters are as finicky as Maseratis but Obama seems to have a lead of somewhere between 110 and 160 pledged delegates. That includes 254 pledged superdelegates for Clinton and 216 for Obama. Since February 5th, Obama has picked up 69 Supers and Clinton has shown a net loss of 2. Out of 795 total superdelegates, roughly 330 remain publicly up for grabs.
What do these numbers mean? Basically, if this were a foot race, Obama has already made up the stagger as they enter the homestretch, Hillary's calf just cramped up and she has begun limping noticeably. The Mark Penn departure is huge, and may continue to haunt her campaign. The initial refusal to cut ties with him completely could very well just be postponing the inevitable. It's hard to see what she gains by having his firm continue to advise the campaign at this point.
This is not yet another call for her to drop out. I've argued her right to stay in until she feels she's done for months now. Hell, forget Clinton -- I've supported Nader's right to run throughout the past three elections. But my question is this:
What's up with the Superdelegates? And what master of irony so named them?
There was a piece a couple of weeks ago by Jonathan Allen of The Congressional Quarterly on Truthout.org. He says there are 104 superdelegates that are elected officials who have not committed either way yet. Seventy-nine of them are from districts or states that have already voted, so their constituents' preferences are known, if that is an issue for them.
What the hell are they waiting for? Susan Davis, representing a San Diego district that went for Obama, is still unwilling to choose:
"I hope we don't (have to influence the election's outcome). No clear mandate at all in this district, so that makes my job probably tougher, not easier."
What do you mean, you hope you don't? Then why are you wearing that Superdelegate costume? Is it just so you can sit on the floor in Denver and rubber-stamp the will of the people? Maybe land a cameo on The Daily Show? Any old mortal delegate can do that.
A Superdelegate is presumably wiser than the hoi polloi and blessed with a deeper insight into the party's future best interests. Is she telling me that after 80% of the primaries and, what, thirty debates that she hasn't decided who she believes is the Democrats' best hope? Either she's not coming clean or she's unqualified to call herself a Superdelegate. She sounds like a wimp to me. So do the rest of them.
Look, superdelegates were a crappy idea twenty-five years ago and they still are. Either they vote in tandem with their constituents (in which case they're irrelevant) or they vote their conscience and risk overturning the will of the people. It's a choice between two bad options. Susan Davis and Robert Wexler and Corrine Brown and the rest of the undeclareds should go ahead and choose a side. Clinton can run until August if she so desires. But the professionals should have made up their minds by now which is the stronger horse. If they didn't want that responsibility, they shouldn't have accepted the Superdelegate blessing.
Democrats need to stop blaming Hillary. Criticizing her for not quitting is like castigating the scorpion for stinging the toad. It's her nature to fight unreasonably. She will obstinately continue to cling to the fleeting hope that the superdelegates will come to her rescue (and their senses) in the nick of time. It's who she is.
If you want to blame someone, blame the Superdelegates. They could end this tomorrow if they had the guts.
No comments:
Post a Comment