Cokie Roberts Sees the Light!

Let me begin by saying that I am not a fan of Cokie Roberts. She is a glaring example of our elitist media that likes to tell the masses what they are and are not thinking. That said, I could not help but think that she has Democrats’ number with this column in the Jewish World Review.

The Republicans are licking their chops. They are just waiting for Obama to officially become the Democratic nominee because they know that there is no way in Hell that he can win. And who do we have to blame? It certainly isn’t the voters. We have made it very clear that our choice as nominee is Hillary (just look at the popular vote). No, it is the Democratic leadership, losers every last single one of them (and I mean that literally, not figuratively), that are to blame, as Roberts points out:

Democrats seem intent on nominating Barack Obama, in the face of mounting evidence that Hillary Clinton would be the stronger candidate against John McCain in November. And they only have themselves to blame.

Yes, the Clinton camp made strategic blunders that allowed Obama to score heavily in Republican states where few Democrats vote. But the real culprit is the party’s stupid, self-destructive nominating system

Cokie isn’t merely taking swipes at the Democratic Party, she makes a strong argument that the nomination process is designed to nominate a sure loser. First she contends that it is set up to annoint a nominee early on before a relative unknown (like Obama) can be properly vetted. Secondly, if something does come up (Rev Wright for example), it is nearly impossible for a challenger to catch up in the delegate race.

Since Feb. 19, seven states have voted. Clinton has won four — Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island —building up a popular-vote margin of 483,000. Yet her total gain in delegates was exactly five. In Texas, she won by more than 100,000 votes, but because of that state’s ridiculous rules, she actually came out five delegates behind.

How can that outcome possibly be fair? How can it possibly benefit the party?

Not only that, most of Obama’s delegate advantage comes from small Republican states where Obama racked up big victories that gave him the delegate lead. According to “the boyz”, this constitutes “The Math” they keep talking about. Their math is a little fuzzy, though, as Roberts points out:

Obama built up sizable margins in small states that Clinton was foolish enough to concede. His delegate advantage in Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana — three states that will never vote Democratic — was a total of 38. By contrast, Clinton handily won three large swing states — Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio. And yet, because of party rules, her combined marginal gain amounted to 28 delegates.

I’m not sure that Clinton conceded those small states. They have very small Democratic populations who are given too much importance in my opinion. I would guess that most Democrats in Idaho and Kansas, for example, are the very same “liberal elite” that are Obama’s core constituents. They are concentrated around college campuses and the like. Those states don’t have the groups that REALLY make up the Dem base (working women, latinos, blue collar workers) that have been rallying to Clinton. That’s why they have gone with such large margins to Obama, and as Roberts points out, their delegate representation is wildly disproportional to mainstream Democrats in states like Ohio and New Jersey.

As Hillary said last night, it’s the map, not the math. Roberts seems to be making the same argument here. The “math” of the nomination process is flawed, and in many ways designed to nominate a sure loser. As a side note, even with “the math” in his favor, Obama still had to sideline MI and FL to get it to work. SD’s need to focus on the electoral map, and who has the best chance to defeat the Republicans in the fall. The votes that may very well win Obama the Democratic nomination will likely have no impact in the fall as their states electoral votes will surely go to McCain.

Finally, Roberts makes the argument that Democrats would rather avoid any charge of racism than actually win an election, even if that charge of racism is absolute BS:

So why don’t Democratic leaders and superdelegates face these facts and shift to Clinton? One reason is race. It’s true, as Obama says, that being black in America has hardly been a political asset, given the fact that he’s the only African-American in the U.S. Senate.

But at this time, in this party, being black is an enormous asset. Given America’s long, torturous path toward racial justice, many Democrats simply cannot imagine denying the nomination to the first serious African-American candidate for president.

From a moral perspective, that’s a noble judgment. From a political perspective, it could cost Democrats the White House.

But this is Obama’s secret weapon, and Hillary supporters have known this for some time. Those that have been bold enough to make such an argument have been lambasted by Obama’s race-baiting campaign and his allies in the media (ask Geraldine Ferraro). It has gotten so crazy that if you try to point out any weakness in “The One”’s campaign, you risk being labled a racist. Well, this ploy is not working with more than half of us in the Democratic Party anymore. And as for it working on the Republicans? Yeah, good luck with that.