Obama didn’t just win yesterday, he won big enough to maximize his net gain of delegates out of the four contests. In the Virgin Islands, for example, he won 90% of the vote and captured all three available delegates. His strategy going forward is clear.

In squeezing every delegate out of the small and mid-sized states between now and March 4, and every dollar out of his supporters, Obama is hoping to build a head of steam this month that will make him unstoppable and will lure free-floating superdelegates to his camp.

Meanwhile, Clinton’s strategy is less obvious:

The Clinton camp is braced for Mr Obama to win a series of primary elections over the next three weeks, which they fear could hand the Illinois senator unstoppable momentum in the race for the White House…

The Clinton camp hopes to stop the Obama bandwagon by winning Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, after which Mrs Clinton is planning to call on party grandees including Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Harry Reid, the party’s leader in the Senate, to persuade Mr Obama to stand down.

Clinton aides have privately admitted that Mr Obama would only consider such a move if offered the position of vice presidential running mate, something Mrs Clinton has always been reluctant to consider.

According to that, Obama has already guaranteed himself a place on the ticket. But there’s no explanation for how the Clintons could get the ‘party grandees’ to convince Obama to accept the second spot. I don’t know how Maine is going to vote today, but Obama has already won 18 states to Clinton’s 10 (with New Mexico tied). If Obama sweeps the Potomac primary on Tuesday and Wisconsin next week, he’ll be up either 21-11 or 22-10 in states won (plus the District of Columbia). Even if Clinton wins Ohio and Texas on March 4th, she’ll surely lose Wyoming on March 8th and Mississippi on March 10th. And then there is a six-week break before Pennsylvania.

In a near best case scenario, Clinton might enter the Pennsylvania Intermission even in pledged delegates, but having lost 26 of 40 state contests (including the last two before the break). She’ll be able to justify going ahead with the campaign, but she’ll have no case that Obama should concede. If anything, the pressure will be all the other way. And, of course, this is a near best case scenario.

Clinton aides believe that if Mr Obama does not deliver a knock-out blow before March 4, the advantage will swing back to her and she will argue for a deal in which uncommitted super-delegates unite behind her, to preserve party unity.

But the prospect of a deal behind closed doors, that could brush aside the views of voters in the primaries, is already creating fury in the party.

Donna Brazile, an African American strategist, said last week: “If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party.”

But the Clinton camp fears that a failure to engineer a deal could lead to bitter battles at the Democrat convention in Denver in late August, which could even end with Al Gore, the former vice president, emerging as a compromise candidate.

“There’s a five per cent chance of that happening, but that’s five percent too high,” the Clinton source said.

Suddenly, not only Donna Brazile but 100s of other Obama supporters are decrying the delegate process – all of them seemingly shocked that such a thing even exists. (Just like every four years we all pretend to be shocked that the Electoral College exists.)

Let’s put it bluntly, folks. We live in a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy. Elected officials and party officers make decisions ALL THE TIME. These people sound like they have no idea of just how our government is meant to work. Perhaps we should just abolish our entire system and just let people decide policy and ratify laws and command the military by internet polling?

Though it may be hard to believe, popular acclimation may not provide the best candidate to WIN against the Republican nominee and the purpose here is not some mini-American Idol popularity contest, but a strategic one.

If Democrats were smart they would sit on their hands until August and keep the GOP guessing. The advantage is all theirs and it would give them a few months to see just what Sen McCain’s weaknesses are. The GOP, on the other hand, would only be able to launch generic attacks (Democrats are Terrorist coddlers, etc) and this could also give the Democrats an upper hand as they craft their response.

IN SHORT, the inability to call a clear winner in the primary season could turn out to be a BIG plus for the Democrats going forward…

I realize I may have given scant attention to the Huckabee-McCain conflict in this post, but the fact that they are in such an unsettled state (to put it mildly) remains (as I’ve said before) the REAL transformative story here.

The fact that the Democrats can quite legitimately stay on the fence and keep the GOP guessing (from their current vulnerability NOT being able to smear the chosen candidate OR having to smear both candidates is NOT a good thing.) presents a REAL opportunity to continue cutting the legs out from their Republican opponent.

Any thoughts?

 

 

To see where a candidate stands on the issues, visit Issue 2008