Hillary's Dilemma

Is it time for Hillary Clinton to gracefully step aside? Or, does she really have a chance to pull this thing off? Well, the answer to the second question may well determine the answer to the first.

Whether or not you want Barack Obama to be the Democratic candidate for president, the facts seem to be pointing more and more to a simple truth: Hillary Clinton has almost no chance of surpassing him in delegates before or at the convention.

Just looking at the realities of the situation, it is doubtful that either Michigan or Florida will have a voice in this process. Frankly, it angers me that this is so, but both states knew ahead of time that they were going to have consequences for the early primaries. They didn't want to play by the rules. As for why, well, that is a question for debate, but the simple facts are that both states failed to heed the warnings, and, unless there is some unforeseen action taken at a meeting by the Rules Committee on May 31^st, neither state will be a serious contender in choosing the Democratic nominee.

What about Hillary Clintons many victories in the primaries & caucuses? Well, even with so many wins, and even though her victories have been in traditionally Democratic supporting states, the delegate count still adds up against her. With Barack Obama's recent strong showing, I have my doubts that the super delegates will be flocking to her side. For better or for worse, she has little comfort to look forward to in that area of support.

Some argue that she is the best qualified candidate. Again, in the states that have followed the rules and have voted, the number of votes and the delegates gathered simply do not add up to enough to win. There are projections that even if she wins the remaining primaries, she will not have enough support to win. According to the rules of the party, as we saw in 2004, it is not always the most electable candidate who wins the party's nod. Again, those are the rules Democrats have created for themselves.

As for the super delegates, I have a sneaking suspicion that the party's original intent, which I understand as giving rewards to states that elect Democrats to state & federal offices, will be undergoing a major revision after this campaign season draws to a close. And, in my humble opinion, that is only rightly so. The super delegate process has added confusion, anger and resentment to the average voters who seem to have come to the conclusion that, once again, voting has been usurped by a political machine.

The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of the people. That is the mantra still touted by the party faithful. Yet, in an attempt to try to do something good, the super delegate process has, in my opinion, cheapened and ruined the very nature of the nominating process. The Dems would be wise to drop the current super delegate process in order to reestablish good faith with the voters.

As for state party leaders, it would be wise to avoid trying to jump over the voting process in order to get a few headlines. Maybe it is time for a regional process of primaries & caucuses. Maybe it's time to put this thing aright and stop the rather chaotic way Dems nominate their presidential candidates. Otherwise, the debilitating and destructive process we have witnessed in the past few months will prevent the Democratic Party from being credible in the next election cycle where they have candidates running. And if the party is a divisively split as it seems, that may only be four years off.

Also see: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/26/122555/394