Unless something pretty odd happens--either Clinton or Obama punches the other out in Ohio and Texas on March 4th—both will remain for a long time nearly deadlocked in their race to be the Democratic party’s nominee. If they do remain deadlocked things will get really weird: fights over superdelegates, battles to seat the (now) token delegates of Florida and Michigan. While the former battle could be disastrous if not handled properly, at least it is within the control of the party. The latter battle, though, may be out of the hands of the party and, like Bush v. Gore, could be another political and legal thriller, replete with David Boies and Ted Olson (well maybe not Olson) reprising their famous roles.
But there may be an alternative: Clinton and Obama could come to an agreement regarding both issues. She would agree not to fight to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, and he would agree not to go after the superdelegates other than by conventional means--wooing them. Both decisions would be consistent with the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) procedures and rules on these issues and with which both candidates agreed, at least before the delegate count became so tight.
In announcing their decision Clinton and Obama could make a great show of unity, ensure that both candidates were treated fairly, and perhaps save the party from what could be disastrous infighting should either issue be decided in any other way.
The problem, of course, is that some voter in Florida or Michigan may muck up this happy scenario and bring a lawsuit against the DNC, anyway, arguing that he or she was disenfranchised when the DNC refused to seat the delegates. Clinton and Obama would have little control over this, and as creepy as it sounds it is possible that once again Florida and the courts could play a dramatic role in the political process.
With respect to especially the Florida and Michigan delegates all this begs the question--what was the DNC thinking?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment