Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton told the Texas Monthly today that she will push for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be seated at the Democratic National Convention, even though Democratic National Committee ruled early in the election season that the delegates from these two states would not be seated since the states had violated DNC rules.
Senator Clinton and her supporters argue that the Democratic Party cannot afford to disenfranchise the millions of voters that participated in the Michigan and Florida primaries. Of course, it is only a happy coincidence that seating these delegates would inure to Senator Clinton's benefit. There can, of course, be no doubt that she would be making the same argument even if it caused Senator Obama to gain delegates.
And while Senator Clinton and her advisors undoubtedly believe that it is in her political best interest to play this gambit, she may unwittingly be setting the stage for her own demise.
Consider this. There are three possible outcomes of Senator Clinton's gambit:
- By the convention the race will already be decided in Senator Clinton or Senator Obama's favor in which case the issue becomes moot;
- By the convention the race is not decided in Senator Clinton or Senator Obama's favor and the delegates are seated, thereby handing the election to Senator Clinton;
- By the convention the race is not decided in Senator Clinton or Senator Obama's favor and the delegates are not seated, thereby handing the election to Senator Obama.
Consider for a moment, the effects of outcomes #2 and #3.
If Senator Clinton wins the nomination by forcing the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be seated, the Democratic party will be rent asunder. The supporters of Senator Obama and much of the general public will see the outcome as illegitimate -- much as we all cried foul when the Supreme Court selected Governor Bush to be President. Fundamental fairness tells us that you can't change the rules in the middle of a game. To select a nominee by doing so will seriously undermine the party's legitimacy for years to come. The impact would be especially damaging to the Party's efforts to build support and political involvement among the youth - many of whom are turning out for the first time to show their support for Senator Obama.
Alternatively, if Senator Clinton's gambit fails and Senator Obama wins the nomination, the Democratic Party will have done lasting damage to its base in Florida and Michigan. With razor thin margins in Presidential elections, the Party cannot risk the possibility that thousands of Florida Democrats will feel disenfranchised and elect to sit on the sidelines in a general election. The effect of this outcome could be to hand the Republicans a general election victory in 2008 and again in 2012.
So where does that leave us?
Well, first it should be clear that Senator Clinton's gambit (win or lose) is destined to seriously harm the Democratic Party. By putting her own interests above that of the Party, Senator Clinton is showing where her true allegiance lies.
Second, by recognizing the damage that her gambit will cause to the Party, there is only one logical course of action for the Party -- we must make sure that the delegates from Florida and Michigan do not tip the scales one way or the other.
It is possible (though increasingly unlikely) that we could avoid a train wreck by holding a new primary election in Michigan and Florida or by otherwise equitably dividing the delegates. However, since Clinton's gambit is inherently outcome-driven, can you conceive of a 'fair' resolution that would be agreeable to both candidates?
Assuming that we aren't able to reach some sort of accommodation, is still possible, of course, that Texas and/or Ohio and/or Pennsylvania will vote for Obama in such number so as to decide the outcome prior to the convention.
If, however, Senator Clinton manages to keep the race competitive and if it really looks like her Michigan and Florida gambit will decide the election, then the course of action is clear - the Super Delegates must throw their weight one way or the other to prevent that scenario from coming to pass. Charged with protecting the interests of the Party, the Super Delegates will be under intense pressure to intervene to prevent this train wreck from occurring.
This is high stakes poker that Senator Clinton is playing. And it may yet prove to be another strategic blunder on the part of her political advisors.
In a general election, the strategy of raising the stakes may make sense -- if you win, you win. But in a general election, there are not Super Delegates who are tasked with looking out for the interests of the Party. With Senator Obama riding a wave of 11 consecutive (and decisive) victories, and with Senator Clinton's gambit destined, at its core, to cause massive damage to the Democratic Party, it seems more likely that the Super Delegates will save the party by pledging their support to Senator Obama.
In this primary season, by raising the stakes, Senator Clinton is not only jeopardizing the Democratic Party, she may be laying the groundwork for her own demise.