|
|
| |
| Fri, Aug. 29, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Here's latest on Hillary, Barack - and Al Saturday, Mar 29, 2008 By John Brummett Here's the latest in the presidential race, by which I mean the conventional wisdom of the hour, if not minute. It's that John McCain wins as long as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton keep going at it, damaging if not destroying each other. She's cast him as unfit to be commander in chief and he's cast her as someone who'll do anything to win and whom you can't believe. McCain need only quote one or the other. It's that this increasingly bitter combat needs to stop, otherwise Democrats will blow their best chance to win in a long time, owing to a powerful mood for change on the war and the economy and the general political climate. It's that Hillary can't catch Barack in earned delegates even if she wins Pennsylvania by 60-40, as she might. Her insurmountable deficit is reinforced now that Florida and Michigan won't revote. She might gain a dozen delegates with a big night in Pennsylvania, but she's down about 120, and, anyway, Obama will then turn around and either win or split North Caroline and Indiana. It's that Obama was in trouble 10 days ago because of those rantings of his minister, but that polls suggest he has weathered the storm. His race speech was a success. Hillary's speech in which she lied about ducking and running for cover in Bosnia wasn't. It's Obama, in other words, as soon as the super-delegates decide formally to go his way. Some Democrats are excited about this. They believe the mood for change is so strong, and that Obama's eloquence and inspiration are so compelling, that Obama will win in November. They cannot see modern America going for the aging McCain's hundred-year war, detachment on the seriously imperiled economy and resistance to universal health insurance. Other Democrats are nearly despondent. They know they can't or shouldn't overturn the will of the pledged delegates. But they think Obama's preacher ruined him, and that, for that reason, Hillary would be the stronger general election candidate. I lean both ways, depending on the day, the hour, the minute - on the likelier scenario, that is. I consistently prefer Obama on merit. I think he is probably something special. Clinton's only chance, which people put at 5 percent to 10 percent, is to get on a momentous roll here at the end and win state after state by margins that, while insufficient to put her ahead in earned delegates, would put her ahead in the popular vote. It could happen, about five to 10 times in a hundred. One other little tantalizer got put out there last week by pundit Joe Klein, a bit of a Democratic insider. It goes as follows: The super-delegates would remain overwhelmingly uncommitted, denying either candidate victory. At some point before or during the convention, these super-delegates would explain to Clinton that, after all, she was in second place and could not rightfully be awarded the nomination. Then these super-delegates would explain to Obama that, while he'd run a wonderful race, he did not, after all, achieve the delegate count for victory. And it would be further explained to him that, while he is a transformational figure, he also is a transitional figure requiring a bit of time for cultural adjustment, time that he, as a young man, has to spare. To that end, he would be advised by super-delegates that he would need to stand down and accept a phased-in process - as the nominee for vice president. It would be explained to him that the super-delegates would bring in Al Gore, who won the presidency once and possesses a Nobel Peace Prize, to be the presidential nominee. It's just a trial balloon. That's not to say it's soaring. But I'm not sure it instantly burst. ------- John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com; his telephone number is (501) 374-0699. |
