Dilemma for Democrats: Superdelegates likely to pick nominee
In the seven weeks between the Texas and Ohio primaries in early March and Tuesday’s balloting in Pennsylvania, the tone of both Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns became markedly more negative, and both candidates displayed new vulnerabilities that John McCain can easily exploit.
The task of deciding which of those two exciting, precedent-breaking but seriously flawed contenders would give Democrats the best chance of reclaiming the White House looks ever harder.
Despite a relatively narrow loss Tuesday in the delegate fight in the largest prize since Ohio and Texas, Obama is likely to be leading in both popular votes and convention delegates when the last primary results are counted June 3. But it is almost certain that he will be short of the number needed for nomination, leaving the final choice to the almost 800 superdelegates—elected officials and party leaders.
And that is where trouble looms. Until now, Democrats have been congratulating themselves on a contest that has attracted millions of new voters. Many had become disillusioned with politics. Many were independents or converted Republicans. It seemed to bode well for November.
But now all the worried Democrats can see are more and more first-time voters who will be frustrated and angry if their candidate is counted out in a process they neither sanctioned nor really understand.
For Clinton to win, the superdelegates would have to overrule the final verdict of the millions of voters who have flocked to Obama, including thousands of young people and African-Americans, to whom he represents fresh hope for the future.
But as political pros, many of whom will be on the November ballot themselves, the superdelegates cannot ignore what Clinton achieved in sweeping such major electoral prizes as California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas and now Pennsylvania.
Obama’s inability to win any of the major states except his home base in Illinois and in Georgia, where he could count on the black vote in Atlanta, is worrisome enough. His failure to mobilize and deliver the votes of blue-collar, middle- and lower-income white families who are the backbone of the traditional Democratic Party has to be even more concerning to the superdelegates, as are the gaffes that have begun to mar Obama’s personal performance.
In weeks of struggle over the period that he could have been devoting to his uphill fight in Pennsylvania, Obama was unable to put to rest the controversies over his relationship with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and his own misguided effort to offer an explanation of what he called “bitter” rural Pennsylvanians finding solace in religion, rifles and immigrant-bashing.
How much that cost him in votes Tuesday is uncertain, but it clearly raised doubts about his penchant for distracting issues.
Yet, in pointing to those vulnerabilities in her rival, Clinton has heightened the most obvious liability she would carry into a fight against McCain. In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest.
Clinton had seeded doubts about her own character long before this campaign began by her record as a polarizing figure, her secrecy and her obvious prevarications. But in the seven weeks between Ohio and Pennsylvania, a Washington Post poll found shockingly high percentages of voters who regard Clinton as dishonest and untrustworthy. The negative attacks she has launched against Obama have hurt him, but equally have added to her reputation for opportunism.
That is why so many Democrats are praying for this divisive primary campaign to end. They sense, correctly, that the longer it goes on, the better it is for McCain.
But how does anyone persuade the first serious African-American candidate, the leader in every relevant measure of popular support, to abandon a historic candidacy?
And how does anyone persuade the first serious woman candidate, the possessor of the best brand name in Democratic politics, and a politician who has battled back from seeming defeat at least three times already, that she should quit?
The Democrats have to resolve this somehow. The longer this goes on, the greater the costs for November.
David Broder is a columnist for The Washington Post. Readers may write to him via e-mail at email@example.com.
Last updated: 8:54 pm Thursday, December 13, 2012