Over the weekend, a respite. From what? From all the math stuff. From all the bloggers and editors and journalists crying, "It's the math, the math, Hillary can't beat the math!" From all the worst-case scenarios and best-case scenarios based on the math, numbers flipped every which way, numbers, numbers and more numbers. And then the invalid conclusion. "It is over!" Sometimes followed by "Who is going to tell Hillary?" I've never understood it. Understood how anyone could think that the math is the Last Word, the Voice of God, the Great Decider for the superdelegates on who gets the nomination, Obama or Hillary. (See my note to the reader, right about now, it's below.) What Hillary has to do, to win, is show the superdelegates that Obama isn't electable. Parties want winners, it's that simple, and now---blessed relief!--- this opinion of mine seems to be shared by a few others and maybe there are more out there. That's the respite (it's hard being told that you are mad as a hatter!). I came across some opinion by these others, on different sites. Here I will cite only three for the sake of brevity.
One of the pieces I found is by Sheldon Alberts of the National Post,* a brief and cautious piece, here are a few excerpts:
The former first lady's best --and, possibly, only --chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination now hangs on a fragile thread. Far behind in delegates and the popular vote, and with re-votes unlikely in Florida and Michigan, Clinton must convince Democratic superdelegates -- the party officials who have become the kingmakers of the race -- that Obama has been so tainted by controversy that he is unelectable.
As carefully crafted and courageous as Obama's speech on racial unity seemed to many Democrats, the controversy it addressed has provided ammunition for his political opponents.
Obama's post-racial, culturally transcendent candidacy suddenly became vulnerable to the deep-rooted racial anxieties of many white voters who could swing either Democrat or Republican in November.
Worse yet, the image of Obama's spiritual advisor espousing anti-American views will give critics the opportunity to question his patriotism, a line of attack that has until now seemed legitimate only to the most conspiratorial and subversive of his enemies on the far right.
Make no mistake, this is a dangerous time for Obama's campaign.
If Clinton can convince Democratic superdelegates she now has a better chance to beat McCain, it's conceivable they would go against the will of Democratic primary voters and abandon Obama en masse.
Alberts is only saying that it's possible. (I don't agree that Hillary's chances hang by a fragile thread, I'd say it's more like a piece of sturdy rope---breakable, yes, but she's a good climber.) And in saying it's possible, indeed, in even writing this piece with its' warnings about the kind of trouble Obama might be in, Alberts is allowing that the math just isn't, in itself, enough. Yet many insist that it is. The articles cited here suggest that a slight shift, away from the math, is taking place. The question is how much electability Obama now has, in the face of the patriotism thing that has been exacerbated by Jeremiah Wright's anti-American diatribe from the pulpit. Hillary will want to push the 'Obama isn't electable in November' argument, and push it hard. Tom Baldwin of the Times of London, who claims that Hillary and her supporters are plotting to push this argument to the superdelegates while Obama is away on break, says of some in Hillary's camp, "They are desperate to wreck Mr. Obama's electability before the August convention."** And Robert Novak writes,***
The problem for Obama is that furor over Parson Wright has reached beyond voters normally interested in political controversies. Over the last week, I have been repeatedly asked by non-political people about Obama's connection with Wright's tirade. In the process, Obama's political persona has been altered -- transformed, as described by one friendly Chicago politician, from Harvard Law Review to South Side activist.
The consensus among knowledgeable Democrats is that Obama will win over enough super-delegates to clinch the nomination before the national convention in August, partly because of fear for the consequences if they do not. But one longtime associate said this of the Clintons in private conversation last week: "They will do anything -- anything -- to get nominated." That reminder deepens the Democratic dilemma.
Novak seems optimistic about Obama's chances; I don't share that optimism.
Even though I support Obama, I know an elephant when I see one. It was never about the math, it was always about what it's always about: perception. In the mind of the voter. True or false, right or wrong, if a claim about a candidate, however subtle, bothers the voter enough and enough voters are bothered, that candidate won't win. It's that simple, and that is is why I've never understood the math argument. All it does is overcomplicate something as simple as bread and jam. It may be true, as Alberts remarks late in his article, that the superdelegates will have to make judgements about Hillary's own electability. The baggage. Bill. (Not many want a co-presidency but I'm guessing most think they will get one.) Untruths---she's just been caught telling porkies about her trip to Bosnia. Solving the dilemma will mean putting her negatives up against Obama's negatives with regard to how the voter perceives either candidate. Which negatives will most bother the most voters? Are there any over-the-top negatives in either candidate? Is perceived lack of patriotism in Obama, to the point of being anti-American, plus his wife not being proud of America until February of 2008, worse than anything Hillary is perceived to have done? Is perceived piling on in the Hillary camp---going after Obama much too aggressively and much too often---going to damage her even with those who support her? What determines a person's vote, is perception. What is believed at the time of casting that vote, whether true or not, is what matters.
One thing I know. If and when, and it may never happen, the party's superdelegates perceive Obama as being too tarnished in the eyes of the electorate to beat McCain, that will be it: they will go with Hillary and it will be Obama's bid for nominee that will be swiftly and decisively shelved. It will be Obama, not Hillary, who will be asked to step aside, unselfishly, for the good of the party. And the math? Remember, the math got good for Obama long before some of these controversies began dogging him. The numbers that are done, can't be undone, and they are certainly good for him. But the future general election is another beast entirely from caucuses and primaries.
Many people have been saying that the superdelegates will never ignore, let alone override, the will of the people. I've never understood that either. What good is the will of the people if the one they want for president gets knocked silly by the GOP from August to November and is then rejected as president by the vast majority---in part because the superdelegates went with the math? The party leaders will sort it out with the voters. They will have to argue, and with force, that it's either Hillary or else it's John McCain and here come the bunkerbuster airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites. If, between June and August, the superdelegates decide that Obama is too tarred with controvery to win in November, the math will go, and ought to go. There is an elephant wandering about, I don't say it's in the room because this one is in, out, here, there, and everywhere. And its name is Unforeseen! Anything might happen between now and August, and Unforeseen symbolizes any and all unknowables that might happen, and even decide, the nomination. Despite the math.
NOTE TO THE READER: I do not in this diary mean to disparage those who have worked on the math and published that work. Or even those who haven't but who have read and value that work. Not at all. My whole point here is that, important as it is, there may come a time when the math must be set aside, and that too many have jumped the gun in almost demanding that Hillary concede because the math is against her.
* Alberts. I've read only 4 pieces of his in total, don't know who he supports, I do think this piece is fairly objective.
http://www.nationalpost.com/...
** Baldwin. Pro-Obama, I believe the Times of London is as well, though I don't know if the paper has formally endorsed, it may have and I missed it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...
***Novak. I realize he is controversial and even hated by many. But I am not one of those who believe that it's impossible for a controversial, even hated, person to say something worthwhile or even, yes, true! It might be rare, but it does, on occasion, happen! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...