The Case for Clinton

Well, this year's primary process has taken yet another turn in presumed direction – this time in favor of team Clinton. I must state that I wasn't surprised by last night's results, but that doesn't make the current state of the Democratic race any less fascinating to behold.

It seems to me that neither candidate is really THAT close to clenching the nomination in terms of pledged delegates and due to the Dem's method of delegate distribution, I don't foresee this changing. Thus, at this point in time, it certainly seems as though the eventual winner will become the winner due to extra delegates from 1 of 2 sources:

1. John Edwards: He holds only 26 Delegates, but as the race tightens, those 26 may make all the difference in the fight for Super Delegate votes. Who offers him the best perk is likely to get his support. Clinton is in a better, and more desperate, position to offer VP as a trump to Obama's likely Attorney Generalship.
   

   
   

2. Super Delegates: This monstrous invention of the Democratic party invites party insiders to make leviathanic backroom deals. While Obama currently lays claim to popular and delegate vote leads, Clinton can stake a convincing claim that her victories are the ones which will matter most in the General Election – the entire purpose for this primary process. And when all else fails, Bill Clinton has 4-5 months to raise the funds necessary to buy Super Delegate support.
   

   
   

3. Unseated Delegates: How this sticky issue is decided may make or break the Clinton candidacy. She stands on solid ground arguing that she honored all DNC rules while also honoring all Democratic voters and that she and the voters should not be further penalized by having January votes disenfranchised. Her compromise solution may be to follow the GOP and allow only half the delegates to be seated. This honors DNC rules, honors voters and allows her to pull closer to Obama – while claiming any Super Delegates representing these two states.
   

John Edwards:

The nearly forgotten spoiler in this race is John Edwards. The trial lawyer turned populist rhetoritician has not yet revealed to which candidate he will encourage his 26 pledged delegates to favor. There is no rule that I know of stating these delegates must act in accordance with his eventually stated wishes, but since this is an unknowable black box and since delegates tend toward following the expressed wishes of the candidate to whom they are pledged, let's assume the vast bulk of them become pledged to which ever candidate he chooses. This could be the game winning boon needed by both candidates. With whom will Edwards side? It's anyone's guess. Both candidates have pilgrimaged to his humble home of class conscience to make obeisance at his altar of hair flare.

I predict that if the race becomes tighter, the stakes of courtship become higher. Edwards will eventually throw in his lot with the candidate who offers him the biggest and best sacrifice. Obama can't afford to entice Edwards with the VP slot as the preening former Senator from NC has nearly as little experience as does candidate Obama – leaving the the weakest flank completely open to GOP attack. I predict this leaves Obama with the somewhat spotted calf of Attorney General.

Clinton, on the other hand, has nothing to lose by offering Edwards the coveted VP position. He's a Dem populist to her Washington insider experience. If she were the front runner, I would predict she would merge her strength (convincingly demonstrated last night) with that of Gov. Strickland and turn Ohio into the MAJOR battleground of the general election. But, since she must win the nomination to play in the general, I postulate that Edwards and his precious 26 delegates are needed more. Indeed, Hillary has already demonstrated her strength in Ohio and she isn't likely to lose the support of Strickland – there are many more perks a confirmed nominee Clinton can confer upon a supportive Governor if successfully elected.

Who knows, Obama may take the general election poison pill and extend the VPship to Edwards as a last ditch effort (though unlikely as the 26 delegates are less important to him). Perhaps Edwards really just can't stand the Clintons and will act as a spoiler. Perhaps Edwards calculates an AGship in the hand is better than a VPship in the bush. Perhaps an infinite myriad of contrary passions lead Edwards in any number of directions. . .

But when left with only speculation, I count on reasoned judgment and position envy. Clinton may offer VP and Edwards will jump to accept. Plus, she's a Clinton; she doesn't have to actually follow through if doing so becomes inconvenient.

Supper Delegates:

Surely there is no one left in this country who doesn't know about the Dem's Super Delegates. These individuals, anointed by position and prestige, have been conferred power by the party to cast votes for the nominee unhindered by the electorate, unaccountable to the electorate and unlike the electorate – without the confusion of ignorance. Yes, the Dem's are truly the part which empowers the "forgotten man".

Current conventional wisdom states that the Super Delegates will not cast votes counter to the will of the people and will reinforce Barrack's lead in the popular vote. This is certainly possible, but I believe Clinton has a compelling case to make to these party insiders:

1. The Electoral College: While Barrack has won more states and has won a better apportionment of delegates, Hillary has won the largest states. If the Dem nomination were a winner takes all race, akin to the general election's Electoral College, she would be leading in the Delegate count. Since the General Election is what the entire nomination is about, she has actually demonstrated more strength in states important to the General Election. Thus important to the party being protected by the Super Delegates.
   

   
   

2. The Winning Base: Extending this argument, Clinton can also point out that Barrack's wins are largely in states that will be solidly "red" in 2008. His strength may put the GOP candidate on the ropes defensively, but no matter how strong he is nominee Barrack would not be likely to ultimately win in these states. Clinton, by contrast, is winning the states which the Dem's MUST hold in 2008 (Michigan, New York, California). In a tight election, a party wants the candidate who has the deepest, most solid in-roads with the base. This is especially important as the candidate must pivot in the general to proclaim a moderated message. Barrack excites more of the base, but not in the states the Dem's must hold.
3. Swing States: This argument can convincingly be extended to the General Election's swing states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc). Clinton beat Obama convincingly in OH and FL, both important swing states in 2008. While PA hasn't voted yet, Clinton is polling well ahead there. If she wins PA and makes the arguments outlined here, I think she may be able to cinch a majority of the Super Delegates.
4. Bill Clinton – Fundraiser: If all else fails, Hillary has something many of the Super Delegates want, Bill Clinton is still a dominant figure in Democratic fundraising. Team Clinton has gotten Bill off the wreckage of the campaign trail. They should keep him entirely focused upon buying Super Delegate votes through fundraising. Barrack has outspent Hillary in political donations to these individuals by 4:1. Bill Clinton, provided 4 – 5 months of dedicated service can even these donation odds.
   

Unseated Delegates:

The arcane and somewhat bizarre rules of the Democratic National Committee decided to punish Democratic voters in two important swing states (Michigan and Florida). At present, these millions of voters won't be represented when delegates select the candidate at the Dem convention. I, along with most of the political world, think this will change. The method of this remedy may determine the final selection of the nominee.

Hillary abided by the same rules as did the Obama camp, meaning she hasn't been shown to have broken any rules. Yet, being a Clinton, she surely played the rulebook with much more cunning than did the great savior from Chicago. Her judicial audaciousness gave her two much needed infusions of "momentum" in January (which made last night's wins possible) and resulted in her claim to a valuable and fairly large cache of Delegates.

Many in the party want both states to simply "re-vote". In such a matchup, if held today, Barrack would likely do well in MI and Hillary would do well in FL. The near draw would probably result in a slight gaining of delegate ground by Clinton, but nothing large enough to secure her the clear nomination.

Team Clinton will angle to argue the following:

1. She didn't break any rules, she simply honored the entirety of the Democratic electorate. Obama quickly wrote them off. Why should he be honored for this?
   

   
   

2. Obama actually did participate. In Michigan, his campaign and its surrogates actively encouraged voters to select "Uncommitted". That he chose this negative strategy rather than Hillary's positive strategy is not her fault, it's his.
   

1. Clinton may opt to compromise with the GOP solution to the same problem. The GOP penalized states half of their delegates for holding primary contests "too early". She could "compromise" that half the delegates be seated at convention. That would provide 105 FL delegates and 78 MI delegates. As "Uncommitted" received sizable votes, Clinton would not receive ALL the delegates, but she would probably receive around 85. Clinton could argue that based on the above two points, she played by the rules – as did the voters in those two states. Neither should be penalized by acting as if the votes cast in January somehow didn't mean anything. And by halving the delegates, the DNC is still penalizing the states and her contested "advantage" against Obama is getting muted. It's a pretty clever and convincing argument.
   

I suspect the outcome of this argument will be determined by how well Obama and Clinton court the Super Delegates. If Clinton is successful in that courtship, I think she may win this argument and lay claim to winning 2 more large and swing states – further bolstering her claims for Super Delegate support. If Obama does the better job courting, I would look for a rematch in both states. In a rematch, Obama both maintains his delegate lead and the very "solution" points toward a Clinton who isn't winning Super Delegate votes as she must.

On Principle,

CBass