Tethered Swimming

After what was essentially a tie last Tuesday there was much speculation that the Blue nomination wouldn’t be decided even after all fifty states had had a say.  The general response to that scenario seems to have been to scream “Super delegates!  Brokered convention!”, tear out hair in great fistfuls and then run screaming into the street.  For the record, I’d like to state that I consider the prospect of a brokered convention very unlikely.  Sure it’s possible, but the political discourse in this country is notoriously short term.

Clinton and Obama basically fought each other to a draw on Super Tuesday and the immediate reaction was, “What if they keep tying?”  The odds of them doing that are pretty slim, witness last night’s crushing Obama victories.  Super Tuesday happened at a point in time when Obama and Clinton were roughly on a par with each other, it was an anomaly and it hasn’t lasted.  Sooner or later one of them is going to build a lead and the pressure on the other one to drop out will mount accordingly.  For the moment it looks to be advantage Obama, but there are a lot of contests to go.

No matter when it happens, at some point one of them is going to have to concede and the specifics of that concession are scaring a lot of ordinarily rational people.  For the starkest (and probably most widely read) example, look at the New York Times op-ed page from the last three days.  Starting with Frank Rich on Sunday, continuing through Paul Krugman on Monday and finishing with Bob Herbert yesterday there were three consecutive days of fretful op-ed columns, one each from the three heaviest liberals in the rotation.  The specifics of all three were different, but each was expressing the same fundamental fear: that the race between Obama and Clinton will somehow damage the eventual winner and perhaps clear a path for a Republican win in what should be a Democratic year.

Rich is worried that the Clinton machine would rather scuttle the ship than see Obama at the helm when it comes into port.  Krugman is worried that Obama’s Fedaykin will not support Hillary if she vanquishes their Maud’ Dib.  Herbert is worried about both, though he didn’t mix his metaphors like I just did.  I certainly understand the motivation behind those fears.  If the Reds manage to win in November it would be…bad.  For my part though, I’m going to disagree.

There is at least an anecdotal case for worry on both counts.  Team Clinton has never conceded defeat in anything and is known for its willingness to keep fighting until the last bullet.  On the other side, Obama is driven by the rabid support of people who took him seriously when he talked about changing everything and they might feel betrayed by any Clinton victory.  I strongly suspect that all of the internecine rancor will fade rapidly once one of them is sharing a stage with the Senator from Warizona though.  (”Warizona”, hmmm is that clever or not?  Probably not.)  Even writers like Rich, Krugman and Herbert, who decry their media brethren for treating politics as little more than sport, may be unprepared for the sometimes ugly displays that come from real political passion.  The boring (but polite) “who’s up, who’s down” storylines that posed as campaign coverage last year have given way to real fireworks and the sometimes untidy excesses that come when the great unwashed start paying attention and participating.

Clinton and Obama are fighting hard for the Democratic nomination, and with good cause; it is a sterling prize and worth the fighting for.  The level of excitement produced by both of the contending Democrats has been astounding.  All of it cannot be attributed to Bush fatigue and general Blue enthusiasm.  At least some of it is doubtless due to the fact that the campaigns have been directly engaging each other for more than a month.  If Hillary had simply romped through Iowa and New Hampshire, and none of the rest of the contests meant anything, would we be seeing all this record setting voter turnout?  If Obama had crushed her in New Hampshire and gone on to flick away John Edwards, would all those first time donors still be donating?  Not a chance.

I can’t be the only one who’s noticed that the last time the Democrats managed to take the White House from the Republicans it was after a long, and sometimes ugly, nominating campaign.  Eight years ago Al Gore wasn’t a populist hero; he was an establishment candidate who was handed the nomination with little resistance.  Four years ago John Kerry stepped into the media void created by the implosion of Howard Dean and was never seriously challenged.  A little bloodletting may just be a healthy thing; and if it takes a little longer than the Pooh-Bahs like, that also may be a healthy thing.