If you’re Hillary Clinton or one of her advisors, you have to feel as if you still have a chance to overtake Barack Obama and win the Democratic nomination. You’re a competitive sort- you’d have to be, or you wouldn’t be subjecting yourself to the rigors of a long, arduous, life-force-sucking campaign that only promises to become more difficult.
So what are you going to do when the math is against you? Well, in the case of the Democratic Party’s nominating process, it’s apparently not over until the last superdelegate sings. Given recent events, it seems increasingly implausible that Clinton will overtake Obama in the pledged delegate count. If you believe in winning at all costs, which seems to be the Clinton campaign’s mantra, you begin looking at what I’ve heard described at “extra-democratic” means. It would seem that the Cllinton campaign has identified three ways they can still secure the Democratic nomination:
- Win the popular vote (Uh…this seems like a HUGE long shot, but ya gotta have hope, eh?)
- Secure do-overs in Michigan and Florida (Is it just me, or does this seem like changing the rules in the middle of the game?)
- Clinton can work hard to undermine Obama’s credibility and plant the seed in the minds of delegates that she’s the best candidate to defeat John McCain (In other words, it doesn’t matter what voters think.).
A few years ago, I watched the Cleveland Indians come back from a 15-1 deficit to beat the Seattle Mariners 16-15, so yes, Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be counted out. She can still win the Democratic nomination by ethical means- i.e., playing by the rules. That scenario is beginning to seem increasingly unlikely, though. Here, then, is my question: are Democrats really willing to nominate a candidate who seems willing to embrace a “whatever it takes” strategy in order to win? Aren’t we better than this? Haven’t we seem enough cheating, corruption, and lies over the past eight years?
I believe that Clinton’s machinations will ultimately fail, and that Barack Obama will when all is said and done secure the Democratic nomination. Why? Because he played by the rules and was better at selling his ideas to Americans. And isn’t really what the primary process is all about?
If Clinton is really willing to sink so low as to try to win by “extra-democratic” means, wouldn’t Obama be better off with someone beside Clinton as a running mate? It may be trite, but I believe it’s true- cheaters never prosper. If Hillary Clinton cannot play the rules, she doesn’t deserve to be part of the ticket. Period.
Any questions?
