Eight For 08

Yesterday, I was thinking of posting something about how the Democratic deal-making at this year’s conventions could be really disgusting if Obama/Hillary remain neck-n-neck that Dems may not mind a supreme court decision on this one. Today, I’m a little scared that I was thinking that because the Wall Street Journal op-ed page is thinking the same thing:

How ironic. For over seven years the Democratic Party has fulminated against the Electoral College system that gave George W. Bush the presidency over popular-vote winner Al Gore in 2000. But they have designed a Rube Goldberg nominating process that could easily produce a result much like the Electoral College result in 2000: a winner of the delegate count, and thus the nominee, over the candidate favored by a majority of the party’s primary voters.

Imagine that as the convention approaches, Sen. Clinton is leading in the popular vote, but Sen. Obama has the delegate lead. Surely no one familiar with her history would doubt that her take-no-prisoners campaign team would do whatever it took to capture the nomination, including all manner of challenges to Obama delegates and tidal waves of litigation.

Indeed, it has already been reported that Sen. Clinton will demand that the convention seat delegates from Michigan and Florida, two states whose delegates have been disqualified by the party for holding January primaries in defiance of party rules. The candidates agreed not to campaign in those states. But Sen. Clinton opted to keep her name on the Michigan primary ballot, and staged a primary-day victory visit to Florida, winning both of those unsanctioned primaries. Her campaign is arguing that the delegates she won in each state be recognized despite party rules and notwithstanding her commitment not to compete in those primaries. Of course. “Count every vote.”

As the convention nears, with Sen. Clinton trailing slightly in the delegate count, the next step might well be a suit in the Florida courts challenging her party’s refusal to seat Florida’s delegation at the convention. And the Florida courts, as they did twice in 2000, might find some ostensible legal basis for overturning the pre- election rules and order the party to recognize the Clinton Florida delegates. That might tip the balance to Sen. Clinton. [Theodore B. Olson.  Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Feb 11, 2008. p. A.19]

 Ok, but let’s smarten this up a bit and say what the Journal’s Op-Ed page won’t: this has nothing to do with Senator Clinton’s character or that of her campaign - it’s systemic. Beyond the polemics though, Mr. Olson makes a great point: this will be really gross for certain righteous liberals…

…or Obama could just hurry up and win the damn thing so we don’t have to worry about it. Despite its ad-hoc nature (half-way through it becomes clear that pre and post-primary articles were cobbled together), Chris Cillizza gives a good sense of what Obama’s victory in today’s Potomac Primaries could mean [WashingtonPost.com]:

If Obama sweeps today’s three votes, he would enter next Tuesday’s contests in Wisconsin and Hawaii as a favorite. Victories there would set up primaries in Ohio and Texas — scheduled for March 4 — as must-wins for the Clinton campaign.

Clinton’s campaign strategists have long viewed Ohio and Texas as a firewall for the former first lady, two large, diverse, delegate-rich states that could offset Obama’s string of victories in smaller caucus states where Obama’s campaign has been more adroit in organizing and turning out supporters.

But recent events have troubled Clinton supporters and donors, with some fearing that if Obama extends his string of victories, the momentum could well carry into Ohio and Texas, undermining Clinton’s bid for the nomination.

Obama’s victory in Virginia is huge - I’m shocked by the margin. In light of the looming delegate-gate battle between Clinton and Obama, margin will be meaningful.

In response to the most recent Democratic debate, Lawrence Lessig got about as heated as Lawrence Lessig can get (when he’s not talking about Sonny Bono, that is):

But disappointment is one thing; (this word sounds too harsh, I know, but) disgust is something else. For there was a basic lack of integrity in the Clinton show last night. As a former friend of Clinton put it to me last night, “I now understand just why people hated the Clintons so.” [Lessig.org/blog]

While Lessig may protest too much, his is also a reaction the Clinton camp should be concerned about: how much utility is there in using Bill as a surrogate? Won’t this strategy only bring up bad memories for many Dems and play to Obama’s strength (’hope’ or something that sounds like it)? And even if the Democratic base is risilient to such primitiveness, won’t it at least make them think twice about Hillary’s electibility?

Seems to me the HRC primary campaign is doing nothing to reverse the negative perceptions that will be a bigger problem during the general.