Hillary’s “big-state” (superdelegate) endgame

It’s just another indication of the Clintons’ venality that they are banking on superdelegates overturning the “will of the people” (i.e., only if Hillary ends up with fewer pledged delegates than Obama).

[Obama extends primary sweep(stakes)…The iPINIONS Journal, February 13, 2008]

Many of you would probably be pleasantly surprised to learn that despite Hillary Clinton’s primary election wins yesterday in the big states of Texas and Ohio, Barack Obama actually widened his lead over her in the critical count of pledged delegates.

In fact, according to CNN, Obama now has 1,321 of the 2,025 needed to win the nomination; whereas, Clinton has only 1,186.

Moreover, even if Hillary were to win all of the remaining primaries and caucuses in equally impressive fashion, she still would not make much of a dent in Obama’s lead among pledged delegates. (This, no matter how the Democratic Party ultimately decides to include disqualified delegates from Florida and Michigan.)

Hence, the quote above signaling what I knew a month ago would be Hillary’s endgame.

In a nutshell, Hillary will argue that, having won all of the “big states” (including California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts), she is better suited to win the general election in November. And, therefore, that the superdelegates should anoint her as the nominee notwithstanding her winning fewer pledged delegates than Obama. (See related article below if you still have no clue who the superdelegates are and why they could play such a decisive role.)

But this is a patently specious argument. After all, in a general election, Obama is just as likely as Hillary is to carry all of those big states. Because chances are very good that every Democrat who voted for Hillary in the primaries would vote for Obama in the general election if he were the nominee. More importantly, he stands a far better chance than any Democrat in recent history of carrying “red” (Republican) states; whereas, Hillary doesn’t even have a prayer.

However, it is doubtful that those who voted for Obama would vote for Hillary if she were the nominee. Indeed, not only would Obama’s supporters feel cheated and betrayed (and justifiably so), but nothing would energize Republicans more than the clear and present danger of another Clinton in the White House. (So why give them just cause to get over their declared contempt for presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain…?)

Then, of course, there are the national polls which continually show Obama defeating McCain by twice the margin as they show Hillary defeating him.

Therefore, I urge all Obama supporters to rest assured that, no matter Hillary’s cunning or Bill’s charm, the superdelegates will merely endorse whichever candidate has the most pledged delegates going into the Democratic convention in August. And it’s now mathematically certain that that candidate will be Barack Obama!

Howard Dean [Democratic Party chairman] isn’t handling the issue properly and should lose his job if he can’t prevent a situation in which the nomination is decided by superdelegates…. If the superdelegates have to play a part at the convention, it would be bad for us in November.

[Lionell Spruill, a superdelegate who serves in the Virginia House of Delegates and backs Clinton]

NOTE: With all of the looming conflicts about the role of superdelegates and the seating of disqualified delegates, Americans should shut up henceforth about the way people in other countries conduct their national elections.

Related Articles:
Obama extends primary sweep(stakes)
Super Tuesday II: Hillary, Hillary, Hillary

Hillary Clinton