Obama vs Clinton : there will be blood

The extraordinarily close race between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination may make compelling viewing for neutral observers, but senior Democratic officials are becoming increasingly worried about the consequences for the party if the current deadlock between the two cannot be broken. Hovering above the party, like twin swords of Damocles, are two major controversies surrounding delegates that could well decide the nomination if Clinton and Obama remain neck and neck, and could cause enormous damage to the party if not handled correctly.

The first problem causing Democrat leaders sleepless nights is the issue of superdelegates. At the Democratic convention in Denver this August a total of 4.048 delegates will vote on who should receive the party nomination and contest the presidential election in November. Of the these 4,048 delegates, 3.253 are "pledged deleagtes" who will be chosen according to the results of the primaries and caucuses held by each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands and Democrats Abroad. The other 795 (down from 796 after Senator Joe Lieberman was stripped of voting rights) are the so called "superdelegates", senior party members such as state governors, members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and members of Congress. These superdelegates are free to vote for any candidate they choose.

As the more established candidate, it is perhaps no surprsie that Hillary Clinton has held a substantial lead amonsgt the superdelegates from the very start of the campaign. The latest figures on Realclearpolitics.com list 239 superdelegates as having publicly declared their support for her, compared to just 168 for Obama. Amongst the pledged delegates Obama leads by 1,134 to 996, a lead of 138. Because the Democrats award delegates on a proprtional rather than "winner takes all" basis, this lead of 138 is substantial. Indeed Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe has even said that it will now be "next to impossible" for Clinton to catch Obama in the pledged delegate race, claiming that she would need to win the remaining primaries by unrealistic margins of 25 to 30% to do so.

Because of Hllary's advantage amongst the superdelegates however, Obama's lead in the total delegate count is just 67, a far more manageable deficit, especially if she can win in Ohio and Texas next month. Therein lies the crux of the problem - that Hillary could lose the pledged delegate count yet still secure the nomination. Barrack Obama, the first African-American to have a realistic chance of becoming President, could win more votes, more states and more pledged delegates across the nation yet still be denied the nomination because of the actions of the (overwhelmingly white) party elite. The racial implications of such an eventuality are lost on nobody.

Obama has already begun urging superdelegates to vote for the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates, saying in Seattle last week "My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters". Not surpisingly, Senator Clinton disagrees, arguing that the superdelegates should be allowed to "exercise independent judgment".

As divisive as the issue of superdelegates is proving, it is only the first of the two major controversies afflicting the party. The second concerns the two rogue primaries held in Michigan and Florida in January in defiance of the DNC, which stated that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were permitted to hold their contests before February 5th. As punishment the DNC declared that no delegates from Florida and Michigan would be be allowed to vote at the convention in August. All the candiates agreed not to campaign in either state. In Michigan Obama, Bill Richardson and John Edwards even withdrew their name from the ballot, later instructing their supporters to tick the "uncommitted" box should they decide to vote. Senator Clinton went on to win both primaries and is is now calling for the delegates from those states to be reinstated.

The issue is complicated by the fact that both Florida and Michigan are important swing states. Any sanction by the DNC which is perceived as unfair could alienate voters and adversely affect the Democrats chances of carrying these two crucial states in November. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has suggested a compromise, whereby both states would hold fresh caucuses, a proposal that has been initially rejected by officials in both states.

The ideal solution for the DNC now is for one or other of the candidates to build up such a large lead in pledged deleagtes in the remaining primaries that both controversies would become redundant. However, because they are are so closley matched in opinion polling (Obama leads Clinton by just 0.5% nationally according to the latest Realclearpolitics average) and becasue of the proprortional representation system used by the Democrats, it seems almost certain that the two candidates will remain relatively close in the delegate count, meaning the spectres of Michigan, Florida and the superdelegates will continue to haunt the primary campaign.

With the stakes so high, neither side appear willing to back down. Florida Democrats have threatened legal action to get their delegates reinstated and, according to Fox News, senior Clinton advisor Harold Ickes said yesterday that the number of pledged delegates Obama wins will be "irrelevant to the obligations of automatic (super) delegates.” For their part, the Obama campaign are trying to portray Clinton as a Machiavellian figure, whose actions could cause long term damage to the party. In a statement released yesterday Plouffe said :

“The Clinton campaign just said they have two options for trying to win the nomination — attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters or change the rules they agreed to at the eleventh hour in order to seat non-existent delegates from Florida and Michigan. The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections, not these say-or-do-anything-to-win tactics that could undermine Democrats’ ability to win the general election."

The nightmare scenario for the Democrats now is for this impasse to persist all the way to the convention in August, a prospect described as a "coming train wreck" by one Senator last week. By that time the party should be trying to unite around its nominee and work out how best to beat the Republicans. Instead it seems increasingly likley that we'll be seeing blood on the convention floor in Denver this summer.