Clinton's Path To The Nomination: Clearer Than You Think

I find it interesting that the majority of people who are writing about Clinton's "path to the nomination" are mostly Clinton eulogists. These essays read like this, "Clinton needs to achieve this long list of unlikely victories and then will still have to face a hostile elective body in Denver who clearly prefer Obama." They then go on to point out that Clinton's only real hope is that Obama will do something to tank his own campaign and make himself unpalatable to the DNC. Then, and only then, will Clinton have a chance of swaying the superdelegates to back her, and by then, the image of the Democratic party in general will be so trashed that McCain will sweep the election, and everyone will be sorry they didn't speak out louder for Obama. They're already plating up a big, healthy meal of buyer's remorse, when no one's been bought yet. In light of all this, I think it is far and away time to see a Clinton-favoring "path to the nomination."

Of course these eulogies started popping up as soon as Clinton achieved what everyone said she needed to achieve: big wins on March 4th. Everyone from both campaigns, to the media, to the DNC said this was the "firewall." She passed that firewall with flying colors. And, in spite of accusations that Clinton is capitalizing on the Wright scandal, the more likely reality is that March 4th gave Clinton momentum for Pennsylvania. She was already in the lead in the Keystone State, and her lead started to grow immediately after March 4th. Yes, the Wright scandal probably helped, and Clinton cannot be blamed for passively benefiting from it. More likely, the Wright situation is helping her more in North Carolina, where Obama's lead has been drastically shortened. Three weeks ago, Penn and NC looked like mirror images of each other, now it's a landslide for Clinton in Penn and a narrow win for Obama in NC. Since the beginning or March, the head-to-head schematic has started to slide Clinton's way, too, with the "vs. McCain" results no longer favoring Obama (which they were by 5 points) and with Clinton performing better against McCain. In that race, Obama has lost nearly 6 points and Clinton has gained 3. That is a 9-point variance, which is outside most margins of error.

So, what is Clinton's path to the nomination?

Florida and Michigan

While the pundits are calling the likelihood of nothing happening in FL and MI towards re-votes a "blow" to Clinton, I think this is a media-created fallacy. First of all, a re-vote in either state presents the very real chance that Obama could close the gap. Campaign schematics are different, the media coverage is different, only 25% of the original candidates are still standing, and Obama is seen as a much more serious option than he was pre-Edwards drop out. Second, if nothing happens in the two contested states, and the DNC continues their shut out of those delegates, they still represent 1.2 million votes for Clinton. Official or not, those votes close the gap. With FL and MI included, the popular vote total only favors Obama by 0.3%. Anyone who tries to claim that those votes should not count should also check their cries for the popular vote to be respected. Regardless of a rule that disenfranchised millions of American voters because governmental bureaucracy made a bungle, votes are still votes.

Big States Strategy and Electoral Strategy

These two are related, and are a very normal and typical general election strategy. In spite of the nit picking about the importance of such and such demographic and arguments about who can turn red states blue, the simple fact remains that Clinton has performed the strongest in the big states and that she leads in electorate strength. Barring a huge reversal in Pennsylvania, that argument will be almost unchallengeable by April 22. Obama has cleaned house in small states and in caucuses. And, in spite of creative math supported by questionable arguments that Obama appeals to swing voters more than Clinton, big states decide the general election, and the general election is not run caucus-style. Yes, there are states that are so blue that any Democrat will carry them, but that is true of Clinton too. Also, Texas is the major big-state stronghold for Republicans, and there is a very compelling case that Clinton would be much more competitive in Texas than Obama. I'm not sold that Democrats could take Texas at all, but stranger things have happened. If 700,000 Latinos come out to vote on Election Day in Texas like they did on March 4th, we might see an upset in Texas. An area where Clinton has an arguable advantage is in voter empowerment, and in energizing her ground game at the last minute.

Swing States and "pink" states

The swing states are: Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. They represent 71 electoral votes which is 13% of the nationwide electorate and 26% of the required majority to win. Based on a combination of results and poll projections, Clinton beats Obama in the swing states by 10 points. I believe there is also a strong argument that Clinton could take Florida, a "pink" state. She is performing much better in head-to-heads than Obama in the Sunshine State, she won the Florida primary by a very convincing margin, versus McCain's narrow win over Romney. If Clinton can hang onto her Latino base and regain the white male vote, she could give McCain a run for his money in taking Florida's 25 electoral votes. The other pink states are: Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Montana. In terms of the Democratic race, those states are split in half with Georgia and Colorado for Obama and Arizona and Montana for Clinton (Montana projected.) Of the pink states other than Florida, only Georgia has much electoral weight, and in fairness to Obama, I do think he would stand a fair chance of taking Georgia, but he would lose Florida which would cut into his net gain pretty seriously.

The Money Myth

"Obama outspends Clinton." "Obama raises more money than Clinton." The fact however, is that since the beginning of March, Clinton has been raising at least a million a day, and when they sent out panicked calls for donations last week, they raised over 2 million on 1 day. I do not see that kind of push from Obama, who is currently coasting on financial advantage based on higher debt on the Clinton side. Also, Clinton is much more financially prepared for the general election, by more than a 3-to-1 margin. Both Democrats have left McCain in the dust financially. If Clinton can get to the general election, she will have a huge financial advantage. Obama would have to focus on fund raising, whereas Clinton would be much more agile because of her money lead. In the general election funds, Clinton is ahead of McCain 7-to-1 whereas Obama is ahead just over 2-to-1. Obama is blowing through money very fast right now trying to regain his momentum, outspending Clinton by over a million a day. While that makes him look like he is winning, it is literally costing him. If Clinton can stay financially afloat for the next 5 weeks, the financial schematic will look very different by June. By that time, the Clinton campaign will have paid off its debt, and Obama will be struggling to keep his lead against McCain and the GOP who will no doubt open their wallets wide. Clinton has also been slammed for her big-donor strategy, which I cannot fathom being a bad idea. With big, cash-flushed donors on her side, there is a much greater chance that when push comes to shove, Clinton will be able to keep her lead, versus Obama's "grassroots" financial support. If I was in dire straights for money, I'd ask my rich friends for money before my poor ones.

General Election Focus and the Issues

I believe that Clinton has been focusing on general election strategies from the start: take the big states, build up a big general election fund, stay centrist on the issues. Clinton is appealing to the wallet -- economy, housing, health care. Obama is appealing to the spirit -- change, cooperation, reform.

I think it is clear at this point that the working class prefers Clinton, and in the end, her positions on keeping your house and getting medical care will win the day. While it has come out that Clinton apparently "misrepresented" her position on NAFTA, I still think that one goes to (or against) Obama. Clinton held pro-NAFTA meetings while Bill was president, and NAFTA was widely seen as a good move for the US economy. Clinton has said that NAFTA is hurting the economy now, and said that she would use opt-out threats to renegotiate NAFTA terms. Obama pretty much said the same thing, but it also came out that his campaign strategists knew this was just rhetoric and didn't really mean it. So, 10 years ago Clinton said, "Let's do NAFTA." Now it's not working out, and she acknowledges this and wants to fix it. Obama just looks like a liar in this case, whereas Clinton has a much stronger argument that, "We tried it, it didn't work out as planned. We can fix it."

As for Iraq, people think that Obama has a better plan because he opposed the war from the start. This is another media-created fallacy. Just because Clinton voted to authorize the war doesn't mean that today, five years later, in a completely different political climate, Clinton is not capable of coming up with a reasonable solution. Also, the likelihood that Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better is still very real. Pro-Iraq sentiment is at an all time high again. Even though liberals won't acknowledge it for the most part, the troop surge worked. I believe Clinton's Iraq position is also a general election strategy to appeal to moderates who support the war effort (even if they opposed it originally) but want to see progress toward withdrawal. Obama's anti-war stance is much stronger and louder, and that may not be a strength against McCain, although it presents more contrast. Clinton and McCain are both on the Armed Services Committee, which begs the question, who knows more about Iraq? Probably Clinton. Couched together with her very real point that Obama has been seriously negligent in his duties as the chair of the sub committee on Europe, Clinton comes out looking much more prepared to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

The Superdelegate Myth

The prevalent attitude at this time is the the superdelegates favor Obama. Currently, Clinton is holding a 14% lead in superdelegate support. Clinton has had superdelegate majority since the beginning. Obama is closing that lead, but he is doing so with his primary and caucus numbers, not with unpledged "defectors" as the media is portraying. The main myth that is being perpetrated is that the superdelegates are in some way going to automatically support Obama based on "large" popular vote leads. First of all, I don't see much of a large lead, and it is getting smaller. Florida and Michigan are going to count in the arguments, even if they don't count in the math, and that erases Obama's "big lead." The superdelegates are not bound to the popular vote, otherwise their function would be what? Nothing. Superdelegates exist because of the obvious need for discernment in the nomination process. If Clinton can convince superdelegates that she is the right one for the job, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, the pundits are already saying that this is exactly what she has to do. When all the primaries are over, and the nominating process enters its final stages, either one of them is going to need the superdelegate contingent to get their majority. Obama has to campaign for their support, too, but you don't see anyone saying he shouldn't. The superdelegates are voters in the nominating process just like the pledged ones, and arguably their role is more important at this stage, since neither candidate is going to win without them.

If find no compelling argument that Obama's case is any stronger than Clinton's. The two are still in a dead heat, and Obama is currently suffering. If Clinton had experienced the horrible week Obama just had, the opinion would be that it was over for her. The fact that she has hung on, is gaining in the head-to-heads and is closing the gap in states that were "Obama Country" a week ago, is certainly not a sign that she should quit. It is a very strong sign that she could turn it around. Clinton has come back every time it has looked like it was over. There is more evidence to support the idea that she can come back again, rather than she won't. This battle aint over til it's over. Clinton very well may win the argument that she is more electable, and that is going to win the nomination. Democratic party leaders have made it very clear that their priority is a Democratic win in November, and whoever demonstrates a stronger elective case by August will be the nominee.

Florida, Michigan Dems Pack Thier Toys And Go Home

So the headlines are saying, "Will Dean Cost the Dems Florida?" State Democrats in Florida have stepped up their case for inclusion by throwing down the gauntlet. Recent polls are suggesting that Florida Democrats may stay home on Election Day unless their votes get counted in the Convention. They are also threatening to withhold financial support, and possibly asking for national contributions to be returned to the state if they are shut out. Take that, Howard. Childish? Yes. Counter productive? Yes. Fair? Maybe.

As I have said before, there is ample Constitutional precedent for respecting the will of state authority over federal directive. I wonder, if the Florida vote had favored Barack Obama, would this even be an issue? The assumption would be that once Obama secured the nomination, those delegates would be automatically seated. That's how it's always been done. But now, when the Florida delegation clearly favors Clinton, and serves to draw her quite a bit closer to the nomination, everyone is hesitant to give it to her. I also feel that if the DNC bends and accepts Florida as-is, which seems to be the only option other than not at all, this will also lend credence to including Michigan. With those two things combined, the "Obama lead" is pretty much erased. Although I have said many times that I feel Florida and Michigan are totally different problems and should be addressed as such, I don't see much favor for that view.

I am beginning to see the Florida situation in a much more black and white (if you can excuse the pun.) The only thing that was not done according to the rules in Florida was the timing of the vote. Florida used the same arguments for moving their primary forward as Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, all of which were allowed. The fact that a voice-only vote was conducted to make this allowance really, to me, seems to make the ruling seem fairly arbitrary. Combined with the threat of (basically) Democratic defection and the potential damage of losing Florida in the general election, I don't see any reason for Howard Dean not to bend on this. The state of Florida has made it clear, including even Republican governor Crist, that the voice of Florida voters will be heard, or there will be consequences. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has joined Crist in a joint statement arguing for delegate seating. Interestingly, Crist is a McCain supporter, and Granholm is a Clinton supporter, but on this issue, they agree.

I think the bickering over the rules is starting to look pretty silly. The timing of the primaries is a technicality that should not be given as much gravity as it has. With the outcry nationwide for supporting the popular vote as loud as it is, I can't see how anyone can justify ignoring Florida. In addition, Obama's suggestion that Michigan be split 50/50, although it would benefit him, is not all that unfair. I'd say, acknowledge Clinton's 55% win and give her 1 more delegate than Obama, and everyone would probably be happy. This ignores the fact that Obama would be getting credit for votes and delegates that he did not win, but I don't really see another solution for Michigan, whereas I see a clear one for Florida.

Something I find very strange is the hesitancy to give Clinton any sort of advantage, combined with a strong preference for handing over the nomination to Obama. The argument is that because he is the "front runner" he should just be given the nomination, and yet in spite of overwhelming arguments to let the popular voice be heard, in contests where Clinton was the clear winner, everyone wants to exclude them. Excuse me? Something else I find strange is that in a political race so close, that there is anyone who wants to discount the voice of millions of voters. Come on. Give Florida their delegation. Insist that Michigan come up with an acceptable compromise. I'd say the fact that Michigan's Senate went to recess before any kind of plan could be hatched is a clear sign on the part of the state that they expect the same result as Florida: like up or lump us.

They tried to make me go and re-vote and I said, "No, no, no."

Florida Democrats have spoken, and they say, "No do-over." This has the media in a tussle over it, calling it a "blow" to Clinton and crying about the woes of the Florida delegation. Meanwhile, DNC member Jon Ausman has filed a petition with the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee challenging the charter's verbiage and arguing for the inclusion of both Florida and Michigan. First, let me say, I'm not sure how this is a "blow" to Clinton, who clearly won Florida. If the DNC is already responding to Florida's reticence to have another go at it, there is certainly hope at least that Florida will be included, and if it is, it will be as-is. I really doubt the 50/50 argument will go anywhere. Second, let me say, I can't believe that Florida and Michigan are still being lumped together. Michigan was a whole different schematic, and hopefully Democratic leadership will acknowledge that.

Florida, Michigan, and electibility

Back to Florida and Michigan again. The issue has been fairly consistent throughout, but now that particularly Florida Democrats are getting involved, offering strategies for inclusion, the debate is becoming real. I think Michigan's party leaders are probably watching to see how the wind blows before putting forth an offer to the DNC. Michigan and Florida represent very different problems, in spite of their being lumped together in the debate. Let's talk about both on their own.

Florida

Florida gets to go first for a few reasons. Being the "more important" state in the general election pretty much trumps. Florida's issues are also a lot less complex. All candidates were on the ballot. Clinton and Obama both followed the rules, or broke them depending on how you look at it. Both held fundraising events in Florida and made private appearances only. Both ran national ads only in Florida. The claim that there was "no campaigning" in Florida by either candidate is a conceit. There was no ground game in Florida. Since both Democratic survivors shared this handicap, I don't think it matters. The main issue is rules, which Florida state Dems broke by moving their primary date forward, and were duly penalized by having their delegates to the Democratic National Convention stripped. Now, because of the finger-breadth differences in votes and delegates in many races, the overwhelming pressure from all sides is to count every vote. So, how do we do that without just trashing the rules?

I believe Clinton was a little presumptive to hold an event in Florida the day of the primary, and if she had not done that, the debate would be even less complicated. Conversely, I believe being present to claim a big popular victory in an electorate-rich state is a long-term campaign strategy, and a smart one. Florida is a Red-Swing state, and a double-digit lead in a three-way contest (Edwards' last contest was Florida) is a big win that demonstrates electibility. Dems in any other election cycle would be thrilled to see such a strong performance by any candidate. Obviously Florida "mattered" since a third-place showing was Edwards sign of the times to drop out.

I am torn on the idea of a re-vote. It seems fair, but is it? The prevalent push at the moment is toward a mail-in vote. This opens the door to so many potential disasters, I honestly can't imagine how Howard Dean and the DNC could agree to it. Paper ballots and Florida have a very bad reputation since 2000. I've also said this before, and will reiterate it here: there will be no re-votes in November. Florida voters knew Florida was a "beauty contest" and they still came out in record numbers. The popular vote is winning the argument all over the place, and 1.7 million voters in the Democratic race should not be ignored. But, what do you do with the other six candidates? Sure, they're out now, but they weren't then, and Edwards is still technically in. There is no way to effectively reconstruct campaign conditions.

I don't think it would be too much of a political problem for the DNC to simply say, "Florida was conducted according to the rules save for timing, which is the state's right to decide. Considering the cost of re-votes, and the potential issues of fairness involved, we have ruled to include Florida's results as-is and will authorize Florida's state party to award delegates proportionally, based on their state's rules. Michigan will be addressed individually, based on its unique situation." Really, there is plenty of legal precedent for respecting the will of state governments over federal authority. I believe there are two fair resolutions to the Florida situation: either include Florida as-is, or don't include them at all. Inclusion of Florida as-is would not put precedent forward to do the same in Michigan, as I believe it is plain that Michigan is a different issue.

Michigan

Michigan poses a different problem all together. Let me start by pointing out, Hillary Clinton was not the only candidate on the Michigan ballot. However, Barack Obama and John Edwards (and Joe Biden and Bill Richardson) were not. So, only 50% of the Democratic candidates were represented. The claim that there was "no campaign" in Michigan is a lot heavier than the claim in Florida. Edwards urged voters to vote "uncommitted" because write-ins would not be counted. 40% of the primary vote going to "uncommitted" certainly indicates that voters knew this, and made an informed choice. This also makes the argument for a re-vote a lot stronger in Michigan.

But what does it mean? Did Edwards win 40% of the Michigan vote? The uncommitted idea was his. I think the idea that people voted for Clinton because she was the "only candidate" is so full of holes there is no way it could go anywhere. In every race Clinton has won except 2, she has done so in the 50+ percentage area, so the Michigan results, at a time when Clinton was still perceived as the front runner, are pretty much in line with expectations. I know that argument is weak, but the argument that all uncommitted votes would or should go to Obama is weaker. Also, what were they supposed to do in Michigan? Not vote? If Clinton had pulled herself from the Michigan ballot, would they have canceled the primary? I doubt it.

So what do they do about Michigan? Did it give Clinton "false momentum"? If it did, Edwards and Obama are certainly to be thanked for it. Michigan was a beauty contest, but state Democrats obviously didn't think so. Why would you remove yourself completely from a ballot when you knew your opponent was not going to? The following-the-rules-good-faith-move argument only holds so much water, and in the end will probably hurt more than help. Edwards and Obama not being on the Michigan ballot has completely muddied the waters in that state and has created a lose-lose for everyone. This is an election. If you want to win you put yourself on the ballot. Attempts to characterize Clinton as greedy or underhanded because she wanted to compete in a state primary are little more than slur tactics. The conceit that there will be "no campaign" just because the DNC says so is ridiculous. The primary still happened -- isn't that the point of scheduling early -- Democrats in Michigan still came out and voted, and obviously at least 40% of them were listening to the campaign rhetoric, since they followed advice and voted uncommitted.

Michigan is a problem though. The problem is not that Hillary Clinton "broke faith" and stayed on the ballot. Obviously Obama and Edwards learned from that mistake, and quickly put themselves on the Florida ballot. (Giving more credence to Florida's validity, too, or to the hypocrisy of all of them, depending on how you look at it.) The problem is, we don't know who all those uncommitted people would have voted for. In terms of the general election, Michigan is an electorate-rich state as well, but it's a Blue state and I think whoever wins the nomination will carry Michigan. The state's overall importance is more inside the Democratic race than in the larger general election schematic. The "split them 50/50" argument is ridiculous. Clinton won more than 50% of the vote, and giving more than the uncommitted vote percent (40%) to Obama would show clear favoritism. The idea that all the uncommitted votes would have gone to Obama is bunk, since it was Edwards who pushed for it. And, with Edwards out, his supporters do not automatically go to Obama or to Clinton, as we have clearly seen since. I think there are two solutions for Michigan, too: either organize a statewide re-vote, or leave them out.

Other Early Voting States

Nevada and South Carolina had early primaries, too, and were not penalized by the DNC. So, the "rules" don't hold much credence in this case. A voice vote only was held to authorize primary / caucus advance dates and the argument was that Nevada and South Carolina are more representative of minorities, and would give a broader scope to early primary returns. Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally been allowed to hold early primaries as well, based on the argument that small states should get their voice heard over the din of big events like Super Tuesday. But, we all know that big states pretty much decide the general election. Having an early litmus test of big states is not such a bad idea.

I honestly believe that the real issue is that Clinton clearly won 3 of 5 early voting states. Including Michigan she won 4 of 6. At this point in the campaign, if Obama had won the majority of them, it would be over, Clinton would be out, and the controversy would be moot. The fact that Florida and Michigan draw the race to a true razor-thin difference, is the difference. The media has struck its blow on this one and cast Clinton as the "desperate" and "manipulative" underdog who will "do anything to win." This has made her look like she wants something unfair. Let's not forget that Clinton is the one advocating for a system of inclusion, and Obama is the one who keeps saying no. Why? Because it's bad news for him. Poor Obama. His "overwhelming lead" (which he does not have) would be challenged. His poor performance in big states would be sharply underscored. He would be challenged to really prove that he can win, instead of coasting on small state wins and lopsided victories in demographics that are not representative of the general election turnout.

Obama's arrogance on these matters is monumental. Currently he is holding an 8% lead in delegates, which could easily be erased between now and June. He is holding only a 5% lead in the popular vote, which drops to less than 3% if Florida is included. And, in the most recent head-to-heads, where now both Clinton and Obama beat McCain, Obama only performs better than Clinton by 0.3%, a difference that is meaningless. The two are in a statistical dead heat, and yet Obama is trumpeting all over the news that he is "the clear front runner" and "obviously winning." I've said this one before too, but here it is: it aint over til it's over, and it isn't over til Denver. Superdelegates are going to decide this nomination, and they are not going to be bound solely by the popular vote. Even Nancy Pelosi would not say she would follow her constituency in her decision as a superdelegate. If the leading Democrat in the country as of this time is not willing to advocate for the popular vote, I'd say that argument is now moot. Clinton is leading in superdelegates by 13%, and that balance is a lot more likely to swing the nomination, unless the popular vote dramatically swings in favor of one or the other.

Also, claims that Clinton is using GOP tactics against Obama are just hype. She has been calling herself more qualified, and ripping on Obama's abilities as commander-in-chief for a very long time. The fact that McCain is doing it, too, does not logically prove that Clinton is doing the same thing. It only proves that two people believe they would be better than him. Clinton is getting slammed for using divisive tactics and called (basically) a bitch for "trashing another Democrat." Isn't accusing Clinton of "using the Rove playbook" the exact same thing? Isn't an uncooperative attitude toward Florida and Michigan re-votes just as nasty? Please. This is a presidential campaign, and a very critical one for Democrats. Every candidate is pulling every stop to win. That's the bottom line. Also, Clinton's words are coming back -- and ringing very true -- get ready, it's just started. If Obama can't survive some relatively polite negative campaigning from Clinton, he'll be crying in his beer once McCain gets going. Come on. The 3am ad? The commander-in-chief bickering? Those are small beans compared to how fast and deep the GOP is going to rip into either Democrat once the nomination is sealed.

Let's look at the math

Delegates, delegates, delegates. It's all we hear about, and it is what is going to matter at the end of the day. Who has more support? What about superdelgates? What about Florida and Michigan?

In current delegate estimates, Obama has the edge. By 2.7%. Calling Obama the front runner, while accurate, is overrated. Even the margin of error predicted by both campaigns easily erases a 2.7% lead by either candidate. By this estimate, Clinton is most definitely still competitive, and still in the race.

Current Estimates
Obama 1315 (51.3%)
Clinton 1245 (48.6%)

If we add Florida (and their 228 delegates), where delegates have been stripped, but all candidates were on the ballot, Obama actually looks more competitive with a 5% lead. Five points is the generally accepted margin of error in polling.

w/Florida
Obama 1428 (53.7%)
Clinton 1360 (48.7%)

If we add Florida and Michigan, the lead is dramatically narrowed, giving Obama only a 1.7% lead, again, easily washed away in the margin of error.

w/Florida and Michigan
Obama 1498 (50.8%)
Clinton 1446 (49.1%)

Just for fun, what if it were like the GOP method of winner-takes-all?

If it were winner takes all:

We see Obama with a much bigger lead. 6.8%

Current if
1516 Obama (53.3%)
1326 Clinton (46.5%)

But, once we add Florida, then Michigan, the balance tips toward Clinton.

w/Florida
Obama 1516 (49.3%)
Clinton 1554 (50.5%)

w/Florida and Michigan
Obama 1516 (46.9%)
Clinton 1710 (53%)

Obviously, the DNC is not going to change the rules and go with winner takes all. But, the winner takes all model, with all states included, definitely casts serious light on why Obama is so opposed to inclusion of Florida and Michigan. Not only does supporting the rules make him look more democratic and more committed to the agreed upon rules, but the inclusion of those two states shows a pattern for Clinton that is unsettling: she does far better in big bloc states. The last thing Obama wants is the perception that more people prefer Clinton, although that has shown itself to be the case when the Big Boys States have voted.

Regardless of what the media is saying, the race is far from decided. With the current reality that Clinton is less than 3% behind, and with "firewall" states still showing a preference for Clinton, the game is on. Clinton is saying, "Let's get real." I say let's get real, too. Obama is the assumed victor at the moment based on a less than 3% lead? Hardly. It is still too close to call, and I am sure that neither campaign has played its ace yet.

Obama is Lying

Obama has said he would be happy for the [Michigan & Florida] delegates to attend the convention providing their participation did not affect the result. "I think even my six-year-old would understand it would not be fair for Senator Clinton to be awarded delegates when there was no campaign," Obama said. Source


No campaign huh? Obama was in Michigan 3 times, and Clinton 4 times, and Edwards 3 times. All three candidates visited the state in April - July 2007. Florida: Clinton 6 visits, Obama 2, and Edward 5. All three candidates also ran national ads that played in both states. Michigan still has a good case for exclusion unless state party leaders do something about the lack of candidates on the ballot. However, in Florida, all three (in fact 8) Democratic candidates were on the ballot, and simply put, Hillary smoked them all by a huge margin. Even in Michigan, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel were on the ballot, and John Edwards was very vocal in advising voters to vote "uncommitted" because write-ins would not be counted. Isn't this a kind of campaigning of its own? Obviously Edwards knew people were going to vote anyway.

At least Florida's votes cannot be ignored. Obama is just crying because he didn't win, and his lead would be jeopardized if Florida was included in the delegate count. Even Obama's six-year-old should be able to understand that, too.

Give Florida and Michigan Their Voice

In January 2.3 Million Democrats voted in the states of Michigan and Florida. If the primaries were being admitted to the delegate race by the DNC, the results would favor Hillary Clinton to the tune of 1.13 Million votes, and somewhere around 200 delegates. This would still leave Clinton and Obama in a close heat, with Obama still in the lead by a handful of delegates. What is clear is that if these delegates were allowed, and Clinton wins big in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, she will be the clear nominee, by May.

Ask John Kerry what 3 percentage points could mean. Ask Al Gore what 5 or 6 delegate votes could mean.

Excluding Michigan and Florida from the delegate count is the real "undemocratic" thing happening in this campaign. With both state's Democratic leadership issuing demands that they be allowed to participate, it seems impossible for the DNC to ignore. Barack Obama's campaign fears this inclusion because it would expose his "surge" as more of a splash and take a hungry bite out of his lead. Of course, Hillary Clinton's campaign wants the inclusion for the same reason. Regardless of either candidate's position on Michigan and Florida, one thing is clear: the popular opinion is shifting towards inclusion.

The DNC is saying that organizing re-votes in these states would be too costly to the Democratic Campaign overall, and at the same time issuing reassuring emails to Democrats saying that a brokered convention will not happen and a candidate will be selected well before August. Bill Clinton also told MTV that he believes a nominee will be identified by May. Hillary is already positioned to pick up the lion's share of the delegates between now and May 5th, and could retake the lead by over 100 delegates. If Michigan and Florida are included as is, and Clinton also sweeps Pennsylvania as expected, she could shut out Obama entirely. She could even do it without the contested states, although bigger victories than predicted would be required.

The "firewall" for Clinton has arrived. She is riding toward stellar victories, gaining in the polls and already seeing positive response to her freshly polished campaign. The claims from Barack Obama that Clinton "can't catch up" are already shot full of holes. His own presumptions may bite him yet. His revival-like campaign style is also losing its gloss. No matter how hard they try to spin it, it still looks like Obama is intimidated by having to face Clinton in a debate. Obama's senate record and dealings with campaign contributors are also being taken into serious consideration for the first time since summer. Maybe it finally paid off for Clinton to hammer on her policy statements for so long, in spite of the broken record it made her sound like. At long last, the same critical lens that has been keenly focussed on her is being turned back on her opponent. America's youth were listening, now everyone is listening.

No matter the result, this will be the most famous presidential campaign in history by January. Florida and Michigan should not be the states left out in the cold simply because the Democratic leadership of those states wanted to vote early. It was the state party leaders who picked the early dates, not the DNC, not the candidates, not the media. The votes should stand as they are; millions of Democrats voted their conscience, just like millions of others have and will, and they should have their voices heard. All predictions aside, all campaign wants and woes aside, excluding Michigan and Florida from the democratic process is, well, undemocratic.

Give Florida and Michigan Their Voice

In January 2.3 Million Democrats voted in the states of Michigan and Florida. If the primaries were being admitted the the delegate race by the DNC, the results would favor Hillary Clinton to the tune of 1.13 Million votes, and somewhere around 200 delegates. This would still leave Clinton and Obama in a close heat, with Obama still in the lead by a handful of delegates. What is clear is that if these delegates were allowed, and Clinton wins big in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, she will be the clear nominee, by May.

Ask John Kerry what 3 percentage points could mean. Ask Al Gore what 5 or 6 delegate votes could mean.

Excluding Michigan and Florida from the delegate count is the real "undemocratic" thing happening in this campaign. With both state's Democratic leadership issuing demands that they be allowed to participate, it seems impossible for the DNC to ignore. Barack Obama's campaign fears this inclusion because it would expose his "surge" as more of a splash and that a hungry bite out of his lead. Of course, Hillary Clinton's campaign wants the inclusion for the same reason. Regardless of either candidate's position on Michigan and Florida, one thing is clear: the popular opinion is shifting towards inclusion.

The DNC is saying that organizing re-votes in these states would be too costly to the Democratic Campaign overall, and at the same time issuing reassuring emails to Democrats saying that a brokered convention will not happen and a candidate will be selected well before August. Bill Clinton also told MTV that he believes a nominee will be identified by May. Hillary is already positioned to pick up the lion's share of the delegates between now and May 5th, and could retake the lead by over 100 delegates. If Michigan and Florida are included as is, and Clinton also sweeps Pennsylvania as expected, she could shut out Obama entirely. She could even do it without the contested states, although bigger victories than predicted would be required.

The "firewall" for Clinton has arrived. She is riding toward stellar victories, gaining in the polls and already seeing positive response to her freshly polished campaign. The claims from Barack Obama that Clinton "can't catch up" are already shot full of holes. His own presumptions may bite him yet. His revival-like campaign style is also losing its gloss. No matter how hard they try to spin it, it still looks like Obama is intimidated by having to face Clinton in a debate. Obama's senate record and dealings with campaign contributors are also being taken into serious consideration for the first time since summer. Maybe it finally paid off for Clinton to hammer on her policy statements for so long, in spite of the broken record it made her look like. At long last, the same critical lens that has been keenly focussed on her is being turned back on her opponent. America's youth were listening, now everyone is listening.

No matter the result, this will be the most famous presidential campaign on history by January. Florida and Michigan should not be the states left out in the cold simply because the Democratic leadership of those states wanted to vote early. It was the state party leaders who picked the early dates, not the DNC, not the candidates, not the media. The votes should stand as they are; millions of Democrats voted their conscience, just like millions of others have and will, and they should have their voices heard. All predictions aside, all campaign wants and woes aside, excluding Michigan and Florida from the democratic process is, well, undemocratic.