Try this thought experiment. Senator Barack Obama makes it
through the final Democratic primary in Puerto Rico with (a) a
majority of "pledged" delegates, not including Super Delegates, and
(b) a majority of the popular vote.
For purposes of this exercise, you may even assume that Senator
Obama's margins over Senator Hillary Clinton, in both categories,
are exceedingly narrow. Assume also that he has not fully resolved,
or put behind him, his problems with his Chicago pastor's extremist
statements from the pulpit.
Given the above scenario, a highly plausible one, will the
Democratic Party, through the instrumentality of their Super
Delegates, its ostensible leaders, diss black American
voters, the most loyal of Democratic constituencies for over forty
years? In other words, will it deny Senator Obama the nomination in
the face of his electoral and popular success in the primary
elections?
Will the party elders do a very un-Democratic thing and
hand over the nomination to a candidate who did not win a majority
of either delegates or the popular vote, fair and square, according
to the rules of the game then controlling? Discuss.
AS INCREDIBLE AS this scenario may seem, this is precisely the
proposition that Senator Clinton is proposing to the party of
Jefferson and Jackson. (Given the sketchy records both of these
great Americans on matters of race and slavery, maybe there is more
irony here than one might realize.)
Call it the Divine Right of Clintons. Or maybe it is a
Clintonian version of the Jedi
mind trick. But no matter how you view this proposition, the
thought of the Democratic Party overturning the first, historic
presidential nomination of an African American at its Denver
convention is truly stupefying.
Slavery has been described as America's Original Sin, bringing
with it generations of racial discord. It distorted the original
Constitution, which was only purged of this toxin by the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of Americans in the Civil War. The civil
rights movement of the 1960s moved the nation closer to the goal of
equality under the law. Now Senator Obama has become the embodiment
of the nation's belated triumph over past injustice. This is a
powerful reality that is recognized even by those who will not vote
for him in the general election.
Senator Clinton's campaign claims that she is entitled to the
nomination because she has won big states like California, Texas,
Ohio and, maybe, Pennsylvania. This argument ignores two facts.
First, if the Democrats have to worry about California and
Pennsylvania -- or even Michigan -- in the general election, they
ought to pack it in right now, especially with an authentic
independent like Senator John McCain running as the Republican
candidate. Nothing can save them. Granted Ohio is in play. Yet, the
GOP is in very bad shape there due to an amazing run of political
and personal scandals. And the Buckeye economy is not going to get
any better between now and November, which still works to the
advantage of any Democratic nominee.
Second, the presidential election is still decided by the
Electoral College, which robs large vote margins in big or small
states of their significance. You just need to win. You do not need
to pile up the votes.
SHOULD THE SUPER DELEGATES swing decisively to Senator Clinton,
thereby giving her the nomination, would this be a Pyrrhic victory
for her? Would the legions of black Americans, who have loyally
supported the Democratic Party since at least the election of Jack
Kennedy, sit still for this twist in the electoral process? It is
never smart to bet against the Clintons in any election, but
Senator Obama's increasing percentage of support from the black
American electorate really "ups the ante" for the Democrats.
There is now overwhelming enthusiasm for Barack Obama among
black Democrats throughout the country. From their perspective
Obama is winning it fair and square.
If the Super Delegates lay hands upon Hillary Clinton, in the
face of Obama majorities of pledged delegates and popular vote, it
is unimaginable that African-American Democrats would recognize
such a ukase as legitimate either politically or morally. It would
demoralize and alienate the African-American electorate in
November, a political catastrophe for the Democratic Party.
Since the Supreme Court awarded the presidency to George W. Bush
in 2000, the sanctity of the popular vote has become a rallying cry
for Democrats. It may be hard, if not impossible, to retreat from
that position in the context of Barack Obama's claim on his party's
nomination.
topics:
John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, NATO, Africa
