Pennsylvania and Beyond: Let Voters Decide

As democrats in Pennsylvania set to vote on Tuesday, April 22, many believe the prolonged nomination will undermine both candidates’ electability. Obama’s association with controversial Rev. Wright and his “bitter” comments have been an unwelcome distraction, and underscored his vulnerabilities; while Clinton’s “Bosnia” gaffes and revelation of new wealth ($109 income tax statements) increased her negative ratings (from 38% to 52% according to latest polls). Democrats worried John McCain, the Republican nominee, will be unchallenged for the next several months, and this may diminish the party’s chances of reclaiming the White House. As a result, various democratic politicians, the media and some political pundits forcefully pressured Clinton to withdraw from the race. Notwithstanding these strong challenges and being outspent by Obama (3 to 1), Clinton is poised to win Pennsylvania’s primary by 5-10% (according to recent polls).

These calls for Clinton’s withdraw proved premature for several reasons as both campaigns move forward to Indiana and North Carolina after Tuesday.

1) The Democratic Party has a history of contentious primary contests and not all proved fatal. In some cases, strong primary competitions became invaluable experiences, especially for new politicians because they helped strengthen the candidates’ policy positions, debating skills, and addressed potential land mines early in the process. For example, in 1960, John Kennedy faced formidable opponents such as Herbert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson. Strong competition forced Kennedy to address the Catholic question beforehand and as a result, it did not become Kennedy’s Achilles heel in the general election. Even Kennedy was short of delegates needed to secure the nomination when the party convention commenced in Los Angeles. Despite the tough nominating process, party faithfuls gravitated back to Kennedy and he went on to win the presidency.

2) Clinton and Obama’s history making candidacies to date generated enormous enthusiasm and money, expanding the democratic party’s political base such as Hispanics, “soccer moms”, and independents, key constituencies in the general election. The nail-biting contest between both candidates will continue to galvanize and attract new voters in the remaining primaries, and these voters may be crucial to winning key contests in November such senate races in Oregon and Kentucky.

3) Make every vote count. This year, many states moved their primaries early to jockey for influence and attention, and this resulted in a messy primary schedule with delegates from Michigan and Florida discounted for violating party rules. It is clear after the 2000 election, democrats want to make certain their votes count in every and all elections. Ending the contest prematurely by pressing a candidate to withdraw will not only disenfranchise voters, but also create the perception that only early voting states matter. It will only drive more states to move their primaries ahead, further exacerbating the already insane primary schedule.

After Pennsylvania, there are still nine remaining primaries with over 500 delegates at stake and millions of voters waiting to be heard. Their voices, concerns, aspirations, and votes are equally important. The calls should not be for a particular candidate to withdraw, but should be for a reformed primary process, one that allows all voters to decide, not the first 15, 30 or 40 states, and surely not the superdelegates.

It’s Not Over Until the Fat Lady Sings

Last Tuesday’s (Feb. 19) presidential debate demonstrated the strength of this year's democratic candidates. Clinton and Obama provided thoughtful policy analyses and solutions, and clearly laid out their visions for America. Post-debate consensus from political pundits and the media was that Clinton failed to deliver a “knock-out” punch to blunt Obama’s momentum. As Clinton’s leads in the polls have shrunk to statistical insignificance against Obama in Texas and Ohio, many now believe the democratic contest is over. Notwithstanding Ted Kennedy’s attempt, in his broken Spanish, to serenade the Obama crowd with a popular Mexican song in Laredo, TX last week (sounds like someone was choking a cat), the fat lady has yet to sing.

The Clintons have successfully weathered many storms in the past largely due to their political shrewdness, patience and flexibility in retooling their strategies and approaches. When friends and foes pronounced their deaths, they always managed to comeback and win. Moving forward to the March 4 battleground states – Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont – Clinton’s strategy is two fold. First, her conciliatory tone at the first of two debates in Austin last week was to strategically lower expectations and signal to the media and Republicans the possibility of an Obama presidency is real. This will increase media scrutiny and Republican attack on Obama. Second, in the coming week and second debate, Clinton will sharpen and zero in on her criticisms of Obama on policy differences, mainly healthcare and economy. This will force Obama into a defensive posture and off message as Clinton portrays herself as a populist and fighter.

Finally, Clinton has strong ground operations in Texas and Ohio to match Obama’s, and as New Hampshire demonstrated, they matter in close contests. If I were Ted Kennedy, I probably would not attempt to sing again, at least not yet and hopefully, not in Spanish.

Obama’s Surge; Clinton’s Last Stand

Obama had a good week, winning eight additional primaries and caucuses in a row, some by a wide margin. He now leads Clinton by 67 delegates according to Washington Post’s RealClearPolitics. Obama surpasses Clinton in fundraising and is projected to win Wisconsin and Hawaii (his birth place) this Tuesday. Once an underdog and insurgent candidate, Obama is now the indisputable front-runner. Momentum may be on his side, but the nomination contest is far from over - the delegate ratio between Obama and Clinton is less than 1% and there are 16 remaining races with more than 800 delegates at stake. Moreover, as the front-runner, Obama is fighting a three-front war – not only against Clinton, but also countering McCain, the de-facto Republican nominee, and the media – that will potentially strain his resources. Obama’s momentum will bring increasing press scrutiny on his legislative records, speeches, and policy proposals and positions. The next few weeks will test the strength of Obama’s surge.

On the other hand, Clinton’s painful losses to Obama has threatened to derail her candidacy. Gone are her campaign manager and deputy manager, fundraising prowess, and front-runner status. As political pundits and commentators begin to write her political obituary – many are reminded that the Clintons have been down this road before, and time aftertime, they managed to comeback and beat their opponents with a stronger zeal. This is certain – battle lines have been drawn and for Clinton to be viable, her last stands are in Texas and Ohio. She is currently leading in the polls and if she wins these two states on March 4, Clinton will be competitive in the remaining races, especially in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Vermont, and West Virginia. Clinton may be down, but she is not out.

One thing is for sure, whoever emerges as the democratic nominee will be a stronger and formidable candidate against McCain.