The Un-democratic Democratic Superdelegates

Recent discussions focused on who superdelegates will support at the party convention in June. Given the closeness of the race and disqualifications of more than 300 delegates from Michigan and Florida, it is unlikely that either Clinton or Obama will have the necessary 2025 delegates needed to win the nomination. Superdelegates make up about 20% or 800 of the total delegate counts, and are seen as the deciding factor in the democratic race.

It is perplexing and ironic that the eventual democratic nominee may be selected by a group of party insiders and some non-elected officials. The intent of proportionality of delegates (as opposed to winner takes all) was based on the principle of fairness and attempt to truly reflect the desire of voters in each congressional district. Superdelegates were meant to allow party leaders/insiders to play a key role in the nomination process – to perhaps influence candidates on specific policy issues or positions, but certainly not as kingmakers.

The increasingly diverse democratic constituency vis-à-vis the shrinking Republican Party tent will likely attract and excite certain demographic groups, and they will gravitate toward a particular candidate. The Clinton-Obama divide will not be the last, but the beginning struggle for party influence between Latinos and African Americans, elites/educated and working class, Baby Boomers, Gen X and Y, females and males, etc. The existence of superdelegates and the role they play in close contests will no doubt be viewed suspiciously by the losing candidate and their supporters. The Democratic Party should revamp the nomination process perhaps, first by jettisoning the superdelegates, and simply awarding the nomination to the candidate with the most votes. But again, politics is never simple.

Virginia's Clinton Nostalgia

The conventional thinking is that Obama will likely sweep DC, MD, VA next Tuesday when the democratic primary elections take place here in the Beltway states because of the large African American population, young and affluent democratic voters. Virginia again may prove to be a great upset since Jim Webb displaced George Allen in the 2006 senate race for several reasons.

First, the Old Dominion State’s African American population remains stagnant (http://www.coopercenter.org/) while other minority groups such Hispanics and Asians have grown exponentially since the last census was taken back in 2000. Hispanics and Asians formed a powerful coalition in delivering crucial big states of California, New York and New Jersey to Clinton on Super Tuesday. They have been reliable voting blocs and if this trend continues, they may come through again in Virginia for Clinton.

Second, the most dramatic shift in demographics is in Northern Virginia (NoVA). Recent governor and senate races were won largely in this area. Arlington and Fairfax, the two largest counties in NoVA, are rich in young and upper-class professionals, general profiles of Obama supporters. However, considerable number of these professionals are either civilian government workers, military employees, or have some connections to government work. They have seen presidents come and go, and understand the intricacies and dynamics of Washington bureaucracies and politics, thus may not easily be dazzled by Obama’s message of hope and change.

Finally, the Clinton nostalgia still exists. Many democrats who came to Washington with Bill Clinton in the early 1990s have established homes and families in Virginia. They attribute much of NoVA economic success to the Clinton years of fiscal responsibility and growth. Virginia democrats continue to have great admiration for the Clintons.

Clinton won Virginia in the 1992 and 1996 primaries, and Clinton may win again in 2008.

The Emergence of a new Clinton Coalition

The results of Super Tuesday primaries left the democratic race where it started – a near even split of delegates for Obama and Clinton. As expected, Obama received strong support from African American, male and young (18-30) voters while Clinton solidified her standings with women, Hispanic and older (45 and above) voters.

Most interestingly, Super Tuesday witnessed the emergence of the Asian American voting bloc. While receiving little attention, Asian Americans were monumental in delivering the all important, delegate rich state – California – to Clinton. The U.S. Census Bureau shows Asian Americans make up about 14% of the population, the second largest minority group in California. Exit polls showed Clinton was able to blunt Obama’s African American support with strong Hispanic showings. However, it was the overwhelming Asian American votes Clinton carried by 3 to 1, that propelled her to a 52% victory.

Moving forward, Asian Americans and Hispanics will be a formidable firewall and perhaps a winning coalition that will give Clinton an edge in crucial states like Virginia, Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Hawaii, and Texas. In addition to potentially having the first African American or woman president, we may have the first "Hispanic Asian" president in November.

The (Mis)Education of John Edwards

John Edward’s consecutive primary losses ended his five year bid for president. His “two America” campaign theme and populist approach did not resonate well with democratic voters. After seven years of gross mismanagement and disastrous neo-con policies, democrats hunger for change, competency and unity. While Obama represents freshness and change, Clinton’s experience and policy prowess reassures weary working class voters. Democrats seemed to move beyond the "have and have-not" argument in this election. Pressing challenges such as the Iraq war, home foreclosures, rising healthcare and educational costs, and economic downturn unite people. When facing a real or potential crisis, there is only one America.

Edwards’ campaign should have focused on unity – the need to bridge the gaps between the rich and poor, the old and young, the educated and less educated, women and men, straights and gays, and blacks, whites and browns. Democrats probably would have responded positively given the divisive racial and gender rhetoric in the early primaries. Edwards’ two America message was equally divisive and thus, failed to be a credible alternative to Obama and Clinton. Edwards, 53, is a young and promising leader. Perhaps he should return to his roots in NC, run for governor, and return in 2012 or 2016.

Obama's Dilemma, Clinton's End-Game

Obama's landslide victory over Clinton and Edwards in the SC primary this past Saturday demonstrated the strength of his organization, grassroots support, and campaign message. He won by double digits riding on the wave of African American support (a whopping 80%) but at the same time, failed to broaden his appeal among White voters. This presents a dilemma for the Obama campaign as they look forward to Super Tuesday on Feb. 5 when the majority of the 22 states have closed primaries and increased White, Hispanic and Asian American voters. Should his campaign focus on states with strong African American presence such as GA, AL, and MO, or divert resources to more expensive, but delegate rich states such as CA, NY, NJ, and AZ where Clinton is leading by double digits? Latest polls show Obama only leading Clinton in GA but competitive in MO, AL and TN.

Clinton, on the other hand, has aggressively campaigned in Super Tuesday states since winning the Nevada caucuses. By down-playing SC, Clinton risks permanently damaging relations with a substantial bloc of core democratic constituencies that make up about 15% of general election voters she desperately needs to win in November. The Clinton campaign probably calculated that winning White, Hispanic, elderly, and female voters may be enough to eke out and win the nomination, and ask for redemption by selecting Obama or someone with an indisputable civil rights record for the #2 spot at the convention. Both campaigns face tough choices ahead. One thing is certain, the only campaign without a choice is Edwards'. Having lost four crucial primaries, Edward's game may not reach Super Tuesday.

The Ideal Running Mate

The eventual Democratic nominee will be battered from the hard-fought, divisive and racially-charged primaries. Clinton or Obama will most likely search for a low key figure as a running mate to unite the party. Scanning the list of current democratic governors, the most attractive candidate is Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) for several reasons.

1. Executive Experience: Richardson's solid resume, with over two decades of government experience (legislator, cabinet secretary and governor), provides the necessary gravitas for both candidates, especially Obama. No presidential candidates have successfully won the White House without first occupying the governor's mansion since JFK. More importantly, for Clinton, Richardson presents a softer side of the Democratic ticket, diverting attention away from her bare-knuckled primary campaign tactics.

2. Demography: Richardson, the popular governor of New Mexico, will strongly position the Democrats to sweep the four southwest states' 25 electoral votes - New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada combined. With the southwest wins, the Democrats can afford to lose Ohio or Florida and still win the White House. Also, Richardson will motivate Hispanics to vote in droves for Democratic candidates across the country and potentially solidify their alliance with Democratic party.

3. Uniting the Base: Clinton and Obama's primary campaigns created serious tensions in the party's base, primarily along the lines of race and gender. For Clinton, Richardson will increase her share of men and African American votes. For Obama, Richardson will deliver the crucial Hispanic votes. These are core constituencies the party must hold on to win in November.

Finally, Richardson, facing term limits this year, will not jeopardize the party's position if picked to be on the Democratic ticket. The majority of democratic governors will not be up for reelection until 2011, and those who are do not face term limits. On that basis and the reasons mentioned above, I believe Richardson is the best VP candidate for the Democratic party.

Hillary's Momentum

There is no doubt Hillary Clinton has the momentum and her march towards the Democratic nomination is looking more and more palpable, notwithstanding earlier setbacks in Iowa and comments about MLK. Hard to believe that after the disastrous Iowa results, she came back to win New Hampshire and Nevada, and currently leading by double digits in the polls (realclearpolitics.com) in delegate rich states (CA, NY, NJ, and FL) that will vote on Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.

I thought the Clinton camp brilliantly turned the race comment to their advantage when Obama's supporters made a big deal about it, a strategic error I think will cost Obama the nomination. Obama might have gained the African American votes but at what cost? After the NH and NV primaries, Obama is looking more and more like a one race, one hit candidate, losing the Hispanics, Whites and women votes. While Clinton is pursuing a national campaign, Obama is stuck in South Carolina fighting the other Clinton, and defending his Reagan comments. As the electorate is starting to focus on the presidential race, Obama is forced to answer the "where's the beef" questions on the economy, national security, mortgage crisis, health care, etc. Hope and change may sound nice and warm, but who's going to pay my bills when I'm laid off, and my mutual funds/stocks worth only pennies?