Some Knew the Dems Were on a Path to Disaster
By Anita Finlay ("Ani") on September 23, 2008 at 5:00 PM in Barack Obama, Economy, Hillary Clinton
Since it is clear that we have a very tight Presidential race in this “no lose year for Democrats,” I thought it worthwhile to share this little gem of an article with you, Why the Dems could lose, by Cokie and Steve Roberts, dated May 6, 2008. Apparently there were those who saw this train wreck coming:
Democrats seem intent on nominating Barack Obama, in the face of mounting evidence that Hillary Clinton would be the stronger candidate against John McCain in November. And they only have themselves to blame.
No kidding.
Yes, the Clinton camp made strategic blunders that allowed Obama to score heavily in Republican states where few Democrats vote. But the real culprit is the party’s stupid, self-destructive nominating system, which has two major flaws.
First, it was designed to anoint a nominee by early February, far too early in the process. The result: Obama built up an insurmountable lead at a time when he was still largely unblemished, untested and unscrutinized. The past six weeks have brought tougher media coverage, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s tapes, the candidate’s ill-considered comments about “bitter” voters and a wave of second thoughts among key groups like union members and white Catholics.
True enough, Cokie and Steve. I wrote countless letters to super delegates reminding them that Obama’s pledged delegate lead came way back in February, before anyone know about Wright, Pleger, Meeks, Rezko, Auchi, Ayers, Bitter Gate, his reneging on FISA and public financing, touting Bush’s faith-based initiatives, NAFTA Gate, even Sweetie Gate. Many of us knocked loudly. But clearly no one was home.
If Senator Obama really had the interests of America writ large and truly wanted our country to realize the positive change he promotes, he would have bowed out of the race after Rev. Wright and his “bitter” comments were revealed. The press may have given him a pass on these revelations, but the public did not. Given that the Republican brand is supposed to be so damaged this year, and he has such a tremendous press and financial advantage, Senator Obama should be way ahead at this point in the contest. It is clear voters have not forgotten his associations or his insults.
Nor are they convinced this inexperienced candidate with vague rhetoric can lead us out of this country’s current mess.
[T]he nominating system was completely incapable of reflecting these shifts. Not only were few states remaining on the calendar, the rules of proportional representation made it almost impossible for Clinton to catch up.
Since Feb. 19, seven states have voted. Clinton has won four — Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island —building up a popular-vote margin of 483,000. Yet her total gain in delegates was exactly five. In Texas, she won by more than 100,000 votes, but because of that state’s ridiculous rules, she actually came out five delegates behind.
How can that outcome possibly be fair? How can it possibly benefit the party?
Wait, it gets worse. …
His delegate advantage in Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana — three states that will never vote Democratic — was a total of 38. By contrast, Clinton handily won three large swing states — Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio. And yet, because of party rules, her combined marginal gain amounted to 28 delegates.
How can it make sense for Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana to have a bigger impact on choosing the Democratic nominee than Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio? Add in the exclusion of Florida and Michigan, two crucial states that favor Clinton, and there’s only one word for the Democrats’ system: crazy. And Republicans are gleeful.
The disenfranchising nature of caucuses, unfair weighting of delegates in certain states, ignoring fair reflection and the concept of one person one vote all indicate this nominating system is deeply flawed and must be changed. If the Party and the Super Delegates had been honest and courageous enough to do their jobs, they would have chosen the best and most electable nominee, Hillary Clinton; given that neither Obama nor Clinton had enough pledged delegates to reach the magic final total of 2210.
…GOP insiders now see her as a tougher, more tenacious rival, and the latest polls support that judgment.
The Associated Press-Ipsos survey gives Clinton a 50 percent to 41 percent edge over McCain, while Obama ties his Republican rival. As GOP pollster Steve Lombardo told the AP: “This just reinforces the sentiment that a lot of Republican strategists are having right now — that Clinton might actually be the more formidable fall candidate for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Obama can’t seem to get his footing back.”
That was also true. Clinton won the majority of the remaining contests after Texas and Ohio by healthy margins, despite being outspent massively and with the press beating the drum daily for her to get out.
Already Republican candidates in North Carolina and Louisiana are running ads linking Democrats to Obama and his “very liberal” policies. And that’s only the first trickle in a tidal wave to come.
Prescient, huh? We have already seen down ticket Dems distancing themselves from Obama in order not to be associated with his flagging candidacy. And while Cokie and Steve go on to point out that Obama said he could make previously “red” states “blue” in the Fall, it is quite clear from his recent pull-outs from states like Georgia, N. Dakota and McCain being far ahead in South Carolina, that the electoral map is shaping up much the way it usually does – much as Hillary predicted it would. Cokie and Steve Roberts noted this, too:
The election map, however, has been starkly static during the Bush years, with only three small states switching sides between 2000 and 2004. Winning Ohio with Clinton is a safer bet for Democrats than capturing Colorado and Virginia with Obama.
Finally, the Roberts’ conclusion is the correct one…
So why don’t Democratic leaders and superdelegates face these facts and shift to Clinton? One reason is race. It’s true, as Obama says, that being black in America has hardly been a political asset, given the fact that he’s the only African-American in the U.S. Senate.
But at this time, in this party, being black is an enormous asset. Given America’s long, torturous path toward racial justice, many Democrats simply cannot imagine denying the nomination to the first serious African-American candidate for president.
From a moral perspective, that’s a noble judgment. From a political perspective, it could cost Democrats the White House.
In this case, though, I’m not sure how noble a judgment it is when the candidate you are trumpeting to correct a grievous injustice is a person so incapable of leadership and so dishonest. Would it not have been better to wait for an African American or bi-racial candidate truly able to wear the mantle that sits so uncomfortably on Senator Obama’s shoulders?
This is a very dangerous time in our nation’s history and we need a capable and experienced leader. The Presidency is not about race, gender or age. Symbolic gestures are meaningless to struggling Americans.
Please see NancyA’s excellent article covering Hillary Clinton’s economic plan, released last Friday, and SusanUnPC’s great piece last night in re Hillary’s leadership on this issue. As usual, Senator Clinton exhibits true, thoughtful, confident leadership, not platitudes. Not empty rhetoric.
It is clear that the DNC wanted Senator Obama for its nominee and used whatever senseless rationale they could find to deliver the outcome they desired. This included disenfranchising two of our most important swing states, Michigan and Florida, and weighting typically Republican states much more heavily than those we might actually add to an electoral victory.
Obviously, our current situation was clearly visible months ago to those few in the media honest enough to point it out.
What was everyone else’s excuse?
by Ronald Scott
* More novels by 
* 
(
)
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
