The real Democratic primary is over. Obama won. Hillary lost.
The DNC and Dem leadership must decide-- Do nothing and allow a Clinton scorched earth attack or cut the required delegates to win by the number of MI and FL delegates no longer counted, in which case, Obama wins handily, exceeding the number needed to win, if even a small percentage of remaining uncommitted superdelegates commit for him.
The numbers tell the truth. There is no way Hillary can succeed in pulling ahead of Obama by winning primaries, even by massive margins, even if she won every remaining primary. Jonathan Alter's done the numbers and Hillary has virtually lost the race, in terms of pledged delegates. Even if there are "re-dos" in Michigan and Florida, she will not pull a very strong margin.
And in Florida, where the Republican legislature laughed at the potential for mischief their legislation of a primary date that violated DNC rules created, the vote is hopelessly distorted. If a "re-do" is run, Republicans will be able to change their registration and influence the vote. Independents who already influenced the MacCain election will be able vote twice, thus influencing two elections. This is what the Republicans in the Florida legislature wanted. It was predicted shortly after the Florida legislation was passed. Don't buy the line that it was passed unanimously. The onerous date designation was added on to a major bill requiring paper ballots-- a bill that Democrats could not have opposed.
The fact is, the only way Hillary has any chance at winning is to destroy Obama, to viciously attack him directly and through surrogates, so she can then argue that Obama has been so weakened that only she can take on McCain.
The fact is, the DNC can do several things to help deal with this.
First, since Michigan and Florida delegates are no longer to be included in the primary, the number of delegates allotted to those states should be subtracted from the 50% plus 1 number of delegates required for either candidate to win. Michigan has 156 delegates and Florida has 185, which totals 341, or 394 if you include disqualified superdelegates too. Deduct 171 from the number required to win and the new number to reach becomes 1854 or deleting the disqualified superdelegates too, we see 1827.
If you assume that the two candidates stay about even for the balance of the race, then, according to Slate's delegate calculator, Obama will have 1677 and Hillary will have 1537 pledged delegates.
Without the disqualified Michigan and Florida delegates included in the calculations of required delegates, Obama will have enough delegates, including the superdelegates already committed to him, without any more superdelegates committing, to win.
If you take Jonathan Alter's wildy unrealistic projection wherein Hillary wins massively in every race yet to be held, "it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama."
Then, Obama will only need 30 more superdelegates, out of the hundreds of still uncommitted delegates. But that scenario is highly unlikely. More likely, Obama will have enough. That means that he already has enough to win.
If we extrapolate and hypothesize in fairytale land, where Alter has explored the unlikely Hillary-wins-all-the-states-scenario, then the superdelegates will have to decide.
If the DNC announces that, since the MI and FL delegates are not being included, the new number the candidates need to achieve to win the primary will be 1854. Then, if the DNC announces that, since further primary votes will NOT change the pledged delegate outcome, it encourages the superdelegates to declare for their candidate now, this primary season could be over.
Imagine how many hundreds of millions in campaign funds this will save the Dems, that will then be applicable to taking on McCain, how much sooner the healing process will be able to begin.
The mainstream media will hate it. They will lose hundreds of millions in advertising. They will lose their cheap, easy political news feed.
The democratic congress may not like it either. The political frenzy has kept the light off of their failures, off the blue dog democrats who function more like right wingers, selling out the constitution.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
The framed magazine cover, with the word "IDEAS" spelled out in lightbulbs, is based on an article Rob wrote for Writers Digest, telling the magazine's quarter million readers how to come up with and pitch article ideas.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
Or check the archived interviews at:
whiterosesociety.org
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
I was a caller on NY morning radio today, posing the question "Who are the superdelegates?" and asking every smart listener to open a dialogue with them.
Largely ignored in the Gore/Kerry races, it is precisely the newer, younger Obama voter that is for the first time scrutinizing and questioning this arcane, archaic and labyrinthine electoral system.
We are told the superdelegates are "party elders", mostly elected officials who represent the interests of the Democratic party, there to help decide winners in close contests. This is fine and understandable for our pre-modern, agrarian pst where it may have been inconvenient to vote, or fine for boring elections with low turnout and little consequence.
But today, we have a chance to make real strides in reforming our system. So we need to research on the local level who our superdelegates are.
We need to get them on the record quickly, stating their criteria for their decision, before Hillary is mathematically eliminated. But most importantly, we need to have them articulate WHY they are making their decision on the record after they cast their votes, which are 9000 times more powerful then ours.
They need to be responsible and accountable for their votes, and they need to be put through the same scrutiny any elected official is for their record, morals and potential conflicts of interests.
OpEd News would be a perfect place for a thread where users adopt a superdelegate and share pertinent information all in one place. Just a suggestion...because 350 some-odd superdelegates may determine the outcome for the nomination this year.
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 10:20:29 AM
Hillary Clinton, the Madame of the DLC has determined that service to her ambition is the only thing in the world that is worthy of her consideration. She has determined that she will be the next president, without regard to who is destroyed, without regard to the best interests of her party, without regard to the interests of our nation or the welfare of its citizens.
She entered the process asuming that she would be tendered the office she seeks by acclaim. She was wrong. She went negative early and often, confirming David Geffen's claim that "they (the Clintons) lie so easily." She continues her attacks with innuendo, bald faced lies and a neocon like projection of her failings (shady real estate dealings, NAFTA, the NAFTA/Canada wink, missing meetings about Afghanistan), and an up front acknowledgement that she will cheat to win (seating delegates from Florida and Michigan).
She is effusive in her praise of the Republican candidate for president while at the same time falsely dismissing her Democratic opponent as a person of no consequence.
She claims to be thoroughly vetted, while at the same time refusing to release her income tax returns (how many lobbyists have contributed to her or her husband?).
She claims to have 35 years of experience in public service (since she graduated law school) but will not release the papers regarding her service while her husband was in the White House.
She claims to be experienced in foreign affairs while her actual experience speaks more to foreign social affairs.
She happily accepts the false support of Rush Limbaugh's radio audience in the voting booths of Ohio and Texas and claims that it makes her more electable.
She mismanaged her campaign so badly that she blew a double digit lead and nearly universal name recognition to the point where she cannot fairly win the Democratic nomination and simply is hanging on hoping for disaster to somehow befall the Obama campaign, trying to engineer disaster wherever she perceives an opportunity to do so.
It is my conclusion on the strength of this history that Hillary Clinton and her campaign are indistinguishable from George W. Bush and his campaigns. It is my futher conclusion that her governance would similarly be indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. That is why I say that Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit to serve in the office of the President of the United States of America.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 900 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 1:21:38 PM
It isnt Barak Obama I find objectionable, frankly, it is the exceeding naivete of his rabid supporters. Onemight surmise that it was Senator Clinton who created the so-called "Superdelegate", it wasnt. Rob wants the primaries ended because his candidate happens to be in the lead at this moment in time. Math isnt a strong point when illogic and loyalty rule I guess. The so-called superdelegates must and should be included in that math, to be precise and accurate. Disenfranchising a few million democrats in Michigan and Florida , where the Republican governor set the primary date by the by, is fine and dandy. But if Obama had won those primaries, well then Katie bar the door....
The process is the process, its your freaking party and its your freaking party's rules. Now that those rules seem to indicate that an opponent of the uncrowned king may have some outside chance to win the nomination, well, sputter, stutter, bleat and moan, its a travesty, Clinton is the antiChrist, everyone knows it....
The almost impossible has begun to happen, I have been an anti Clinton guy for years, and that included Bill as well. But the incredible bias and downright illogic of those who support Barak Obama has pushed me to defend the lady. When one of the Clinton clan makes the slightest remark that may or may not be seen as personally disparaging to the infante terrible, well lets all post hateful stuff about her. Yet when the walk on water guy slurs his opponent, well nothing to see here folks, move along. When Obama's staff is shown to include some highly placed corproate clowns, well, so what that doesnt mean a thing. When one of his most trusted staffers assures the Canadians that all this NAFTA talk is just campaigning, well its not Barak the king, its a horrific right wing plot against our nation......My goodness I guess we really do get the sort of governance we deserve after all.....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 3:09:52 PM
Obama has the temerity to call on Hillary Clinton to release her tax returns and is christened the new Kenneth Starr by Howard Wolfson. We find that when Hillary Clinton accuses Obama of not chairing any meeting about Afghanistan, that it is her committee, Armed Services with that jurisdiction and they have had two such meetings with Hillary Clinton absent.
I heard today on Randi Rhodes radio program on Air America, that it was Hillary Clinton's Iowa campaign aide who propagated the "Obama is a Muslim" viral e-mail. Hillary Clinton just today repeated her slander of Obama regarding the Canadian/NAFTA lie, when yesterday's reports quoted the Prime Minister's chief of staff saying that such assurance came from the Clinton campaign.
Obama however, accepted a campaign foreign policy advisor's resignation after she termed Hillary Clinton a "monster", a perjorative term that I would feel comfortable trumping by a magnitude.
But still I have heard very little in terms of complaint about these manifold slanders from Barack Obama. I have to wonder where you have.
Perhaps you should contact Howard Wolfson. He may have a job for you.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 900 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 7:19:43 PM
If you havent heard Obama slander Clinton it is not because he hasnt done so it is because your partisanship does not allow you to understand the slur as such. That is no way to make decisions.
I am, as I have stated and restated, no fan of either candidate, but I am an adherent of a thoughful and considered political race and the use of intellect rather than emotion in making the decison as to where your vote should be cast. That you are not is a detriment to this nation's future, you are not electing a damned beauty queen here.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 9:16:48 AM
I have given Barack Obama four years of consideration, listening to what he says, looking at what he does, checking his record, and deciding with my intellect whether or not to support him.
What I have not done is entertain myself with MSM accounts of the candidates and believed them all, nor have I refused my support to any candidate who did not have "Ardee's platform is my platform" tatooed on his forehead.
I do, however, recommend that you withold your support until you find your doppelganger on the stump, and I'm sure we'll all jump on that bandwagon.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 900 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 9:41:05 AM
empty promises calling for hope are for the naive and politics for adults capable of independent thought and not blind allegiance. If you did as you stated, listened to Obama for four years, then you have no excuses for missing his sarcasms and slanders. I do not exclude the Clinton camp from such but wonder at the bias that leaves you blind.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 8:44:07 PM
I find it a bit amusing and telling that those people who are so quick to slam obama supporters invariably resort to childish namecalling and nastiness as part of their screed. Go figure!
by
Nezua (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 93 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 3:57:21 AM
I think one thing is clear this far into the Democratic primary race: Both Obama's and Clinton's supporters must now drop out of the race.
Hillary Clinton's supporters have gotten incredibly annoying, with their chants of "Yes She Can," and charges of cultism and their desperate yelps of schadenfreude every time Clinton looks like she might actually be "recapturing the lead" that she never had.
And Obama's supporters, yes, you too are incredibly annoying, with your accusations of Clintonian Republicanism and your whiny little cries about how you're going to take your ball and run home if your candidate doesn't win the primary.
Supporters of both candidates, please listen closely. For the good of the Party -- no, for the good of the Nation! -- the time has come for you to leave this race.
No more late nights in front of MSNBC. No more blogging. No more reading TPM. No more arguing at the watercooler, or at the happy hour after work at TGIF's.
Find a hobby -- knitting is really getting popular these days!
Anything, anything but your insistent and continual droning on and on about how perfect your candidate is.
Remember -- the future of this Republic is at stake.
it happens, oh agendised one, I am neither a Clinton or Obama supporter, what I am is a fan of truth, honesty and using ones brain to make political decisions. Try it sometime, it might become a habit.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 9:11:07 AM
I have a life, four kids, fourteen grandkids, every one a deal smarter than you thank goodness. What I am looking for are people who use their brains to make decisions, who understand that elections are not popularity contests but are deserving of serious thought and reflection.
If you get out of the way perhaps I'll find some.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 11:21:05 AM
stems, not from anger, but from the cold light of logic. One really dumb argument followed immediately by another such. You need to really and truly study your subject better, make more informed decisions and help your nation instead of hindering her.
Someone must stand in the way of the stupidity that has overtaken, not only this forum, but our election process in general. If those of limited intellect (hint) see that as an angry position well, I dont respect your opinion about much else so why would I about that?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 8:05:30 AM
I haven't made up my mind yet, disgusted there isn't a progressive candidate to choose from. It's Obama or Clinton, and neither are saints or perfect.
Obama has the charisma and some brilliant speech writers, and he appears to be positioned to unite the country - but there's a thorn in Obama's side that he must address himself and call-off his supporters that are spamming, trolling, and disrupting discourse as it pertains to Senator Obama on several internet sites. I'm personally offended that Democrats would resort to tactics that resemble GOP Trolls, and in some cases, even more audacious then our opposition.
I've been thinking about writing about both candidates, pro and con, and my perception thereof, and know that when I do, what to expect in the aftermath if it doesn't flatter Obama. Our strength is supposed to be our ability to view two opposing ideals and/or opinions and decide, through commentary and investigative reporting, which is the path we as individuals choose to follow. It shouldn't reflect upon Senator Obama, but it's become an issue, and no matter how hard I try not to, I feel insulted when I take note how rabid some of the Obama supporters seem - almost an Obama or nothing mindset, just as Rob describes Hillary. It's possible that it's a shared trait. As I said, neither is perfect.
In the same breath, uniting the country in a positive manner may be worth the leap if it actually happens. If Obama has the delegate count hands-down as it appears he does, what should follow is what's legal and correct, it's that simple. The world is getting tougher by the day. There's a worldwide grain shortage, fresh water supplies are dwindling, oil will still be an issue, and strife and conflict lie in our future unless a miraculous healing of the earth occurs, and that isn't going to happen. Yes, we need a President that will be a problem solver, diplomat, and tough enough to make the right decisions, whatever they may be.
If only I had the ability to see who would be on Obama's cabinet - which is the key for any President and vital for his or her success. But, no crystal ball here, so I still remain undecided until the powers that be make their decision.
William Cormier
by
William Cormier (111 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 276 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 6:06:37 PM
However, Hillary has institutionalized the rabid blindness in her campaign organization by embracing the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove school of campaigning. It has no truth. It has no honor. It has no conscience. It has no place in a democratic republic.
I have been an Obama supporter since he was in the senatorial primaries in 2004. I did however believe up until revelations of the last few days that the candidates should be able to follow the process to its end. Those revelations, however have shown Hillary Clinton to be no different in any respect that that government that we wish to put behind us. (See my comment higher in this thread.)
It is no longer a one or the other proposition. Clinton is fatally flawed.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 900 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 6:17:42 PM
...but I think that Hillary will end up as the Democratic candidate for President. I don't know how they will get to that point, and what they will have to do in order to achieve that objective, but I am pretty darn sure that is the "plan."
And hey, the DLC will do NOTHING to help Obama because they are SCARED. Not of him -- he's easily manipulated by putting the correct set of "advisors" in his camp -- but by the people he brings into the party. The DLC is scared to death of YOUNG, ENERGETIC, ON-LINE, voters, as they can't rely on them to vote the party ticket without critique (like their parents would, holding their noses when necessary), they can't be sure they can CONTROL them, and they don't know what to give them.
They were scared of Dean's young people. They are scared of Obama's young people. In general, they don't really LIKE young people.
Hillary is the back-up plan in case McCain falls farther than 15% behind in the polls and "giving" him the 48% he needs to win would raise too many (inconvenient) questions about the vote counting process. By having Hillary, they don't have to worry. Their first choice, of course, is to give the Unitary Executive and its king-like powers to McCain and whomever they have put in place to be his veep, but if they have to hand it to somebody else, then Hillary is a good fall-back. She won't go after them, and when the whole economy implodes, she won't try to do any crazy, FDR-like stuff to fix it, she'll just put a band-aid on it and try to muddle through.
I hope I'm wrong.
But I don't think so.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 616 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 6:45:53 PM
Hillary is DLC to the core. Dem leaders like Schumer, Emanuel-- they are likely going crazy with the possibility that their queen is not going to ascend to power. Hillary loses and that likely means DLC leaders lose some or much of their influence.
What a tragedy.
by
Rob Kall (728 articles, 3775 quicklinks, 311 diaries, 1521 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 9:46:04 PM
There is such a little difference between the two, Clinton and Obama, politically speaking that these words represent only your partisanship and not the gospel you posit.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 9:19:33 AM
I ju st heard Hillary on hardball defending her calling Obama "Ken Starr" because Star is a historic figure and the word 'monster " is an ad homin attack. So let me get this straight, If Obama's aid had called Hilary Clinton Attilla the Hun or Adolph Hitler in drag. it would have been Ok because they are historical figures? Hiilary Clinton would aprove that message but not one that called her a generic monster?
WOW Foriegn leaders of the world here is your strategy! When you call Hilary on the red phone make sure you compare her to a historical character! She will then have to admit you have a valid point. Why go to war with the gorgon when you can simply insult her?
by
siriusss (4 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 72 comments)
on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 10:46:03 PM
I like pieces from all of the comments! Rob, you are absolutely right, it is DEFINITELY not fair that a candidate can do everything right, win the popular vote and lose.
It is true that Hillary's 35 years of experience statement is positively ludicrous. Ardee brought up the point that Obama is not necessarily a great choice due to the fact that he really will not know what he is doing once he arrives at the door of the oval office and reality comes crashing home.. Of course, then it will be a bit too late for the country.
What Democrats need to understand is that Hillary will do anything to win. The Clintons don't care what this does to the party, they don't care what this does to the nation, and they sure as hell don't care what this does to the people who put them in office! They are addicts. They are addicted to power like some are addicted to crack.
Obama is popular because he speaks well. What does he say when he speaks? Not much... However, he is likable when he speaks nothing, because he has charisma and he is a great orator.
Hillary will win the Democrat nomination despite what everyone hopes/thinks/wants... The sooner people get that through their heads, the less shock there will be when the "scorched earth politics" starts being played.
I am thinking that Obama may bow out before the convention, but who knows?
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 434 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 8:34:02 AM
It is not Obama that I object too so strenuously, though I will not vote for him in the general election, nor Clinton should she gain the nomination. It is the sophomoric charges and the emotionalism of his supporters that really irks me. Political decisions are not beauty pageants and facts are nowhere near as malleable as Rob and company would make you believe.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 9:24:52 AM
Obama will not pick Feingold or Kucinich for a running mate because they are too close to his geographical base. Edwards would give him a boost in the Carolinas where he already does pretty well.
His veep selection will be based on geographical and ideological balance. Since the Republicans will be charging him with being too liberal (yes, everything looks liberal when you're far enough to the right) He will likely go with a more centrist pick.
I'm thinking either Bill Richardson of New Mexico who brings the West along with a lengthy resume that includes foreign affairs, or James Webb of Virginia who brings Virginia with experience and impeccable military crede
