The Politics of Slash and Burn

“Race hate isn’t human nature; race hate is the abandonment of human nature” – Orson Welles, actor, director, producer and writer 1915-1985

In a year when Democrats stand their best chance to win back the White House since those heady days of post-Watergate public disillusionment of Washington politics, one would have thought that the leading Democratic candidates for President would; while engaging in a competitive race to become their party’s nominee, have generally taken the high road in conducting their campaigns and kept the rough stuff in response to the inevitable barrage of dirty tricks that will be thrown by John McCain in the general election campaign. Think again.

Coming out of the final two primaries of Wyoming and Mississippi and six weeks before the next big statewide election in Pennsylvania on April 22nd, the war of words between the Clinton and Obama camps has escalated to a new low in terms of rhetoric, racially charged comments and downright lies. And to be honest, the vast majority of the dirty tricks are coming from the Clinton campaign. Many commentators and seasoned political veterans see the Clinton camp’s self-styled “kitchen-sink strategy” of misinformation and race baiting as a last ditch effort to wrestle the initiative from Obama.

Two days before the do or die primaries on March 4th in Texas and Ohio Clinton was asked on national TV about the scurrilous (and false) rumor that Barack Obama was a closet Muslim. Knowing full well that the rumor was categorically false, Clinton obfuscated, saying that as “far as I know” Senator Obama was not Muslim. Many in the main stream media rightly took Clinton to task for deliberately raising a doubt in the mind of some voters, especially in Ohio, and especially at a time when she desperately needed to win a state, any state, to revive her chances of winning the nomination.

Clinton herself followed up in the days after the critical March 4th primaries by raising the question about Obama’s ability to be an effective leader on day one in the White House. This has been a constant theme for the Clinton campaign since the primaries began on January 3rd; however it has been raised to a new level in recent weeks. Citing her own so-called wealth of experience to be Commander-in-Chief (CIC), Clinton made a fatal error in publicly stating that John McCain was more qualified to be president than Barack Obama. Not surprisingly, Democrats are up in arms over the comment, which essentially undermines Obama’s credentials against McCain in the general election in the event that Obama does in fact beat Clinton and wins the Democratic nomination.

To further exasperate (and confuse) matters, Clinton then proposed that while Obama is not ready to be CIC, he would make a great Vice President and that she would be delighted to have him as her VP running mate. Obama responded forcefully, asking publicly the question that many were asking privately, which is why would Clinton offer Obama the VP slot on one hand if on the other hand she didn’t think he was ready to be CIC and able to immediately assume the Presidency should anything happen to a President Clinton. In addition, Obama pointed out the obvious problem with Clinton’s proposal – why should he, the candidate that is in first place and leading in terms of the number of states won, popular vote and number of committed delegates, take second place on a national ticket. The arrogance and attitude of self-entitlement of the Clinton’s is breathtaking.

Fast forward to this week and a member of the Clinton finance committee, Geraldine Ferraro, gives an interview to a local California newspaper where she boldly states that Barack Obama is where he is today BECAUSE he is black and that if he was a regular white politician he would be a nobody. If Geraldine Ferraro was a low level campaign operative you might be forgiven for dismissing this blatant racism as a comment from someone who is not in touch with reality, however Ferraro is a career politician, a respected trailblazer for women’s issues over the course of 30 years and a former vice presidential candidate herself, being part of the Democratic ticket with Walter Mondale that was annihilated by Ronald Reagan in 1984.

The outcry to her comments was immediate and while Hillary Clinton announced that she disagreed with them she didn’t reject them or ask Ferraro to leave her campaign. Never one to go quietly, Ferraro proceeded to do a round of television interviews where, unbelievably, she claimed that the Obama campaign was using the race card against her because she was a white woman and that Obama should apologize to her! As you might expect, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and within hours Ferraro was gone from the Clinton campaign, not fired but having resigned on her own account so that she “could continue to speak the truth”. Asked about Ferraro’s comments, Barack Obama called them “ridiculous” and “wrong-headed”, pointing out in a statement that is deep in irony and sarcasm that because of the fact that he WAS a black man with a name like Barack Obama hardly gave him an advantage in a political race against the most well known woman in America (Clinton) and whose husband was a former president.

The Clinton strategy has so angered many of the Democratic leaders that Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, weighted in this week when asked by reporters about a so-called “Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton” dream ticket. Pelosi ruled it out as now “impossible”, citing Clinton’s irresponsible comments about Obama’s inability to be commander in chief. Pressed further on the matter, Pelosi said “…take it from me, there will be no dream ticket”. Many see this as a veiled endorsement of Obama’s candidacy and because it is coming from the House Speaker it is not unreasonable to assume that Pelosi is speaking for a large number of the Democratic leadership.

Many commentators see this sequence of events as a deliberate strategy by the Clinton campaign to undermine the Obama candidacy and a last ditch attempt to win back the momentum in the race for the nomination. The facts, however, show that the odds are increasingly becoming stacked against Clinton as each new state contest is completed. As of March 14th, here is the current state of play:

Obama/Clinton
Pledged Delegates 1411/1250
Super delegates* 207/237
Total Delegates 1617/1487
States Won 30/14
Popular Vote Won 13,281,132/12,577,409

The first to reach 2025 will win the nomination. What is probable is that with 10 primaries to go, neither candidate will be able to reach the magic number of 2025 without the help of the so-called “super-delegates”. Super-delegates are a group of elected and party officials that comprise senators, congressmen and women, governors and others who have a vote at the nominating convention when the Democrats will choose their candidate. Clinton has held a lead with super delegates for over a year, largely because many of them pledged their vote to her when she seemed unbeatable in the polls before the actual primaries began in early January. Her lead over Obama in terms of super-delegates is decreasing on a weekly basis. The Clinton strategy is partially built around hoping to be able to persuade many of the undecided super-delegates to vote for her at the convention.

The reality however is that if Obama comes to the convention with more pledged delegates, most states won and a lead in the popular vote it is inconceivable that the super delegates with ignore the will of the people and give the nomination to Clinton. To do so would literally rip the Democratic Party in two in much the same way it was divided in 1968, allowing Richard Nixon to narrowly win the general election. After 7 years of W, the Democratic leadership is not about to let 1968 happen all over again.