2008 Primary Super Tuesday - The March to the White House

On the cusp of Super Tuesday, Barack Obama continues closing the enormous gap he once faced in most key states. His momentum has yet to carry him over the top. Hillary Clinton still clings to leads, sometimes narrow, in the bulk of states in play.

Tomorrow votes will be cast in twenty-four states. In the top ten states, poll data, reliable or not, shows Hillary leading in eight, although by razor-thin margins in California, Alabama, Missouri, Connecticut and New Jersey. Only in New York, Massachusetts and Tennessee does her lead seem secure.

How did the once mighty Clinton machine falter so badly? And will the trend for Obama continue?

Every election is, at some level, a simple conversation between camps. Obama began the campaign by saying he was "new"; Hillary replied that he was "inexperienced"; Obama answered he was a "voice for change"; Hillary countered she was the one to bring the country back to the "optimism, dynamism and entrepreneurship enjoyed during the Clinton Administration."

So went the state of discussions leading up to Iowa. The after losing Iowa and almost failing in New Hampshire, the Clintons panicked and played the race card - injecting it into a contest that had been and should be colorblind.

While Hillary emphasizes in every speech that she will be the first "woman" president, Obama had rarely mentioned race. He ran for the Democratic nomination like a Republican black - never summoning victim status and avoiding racial remarks entirely.

Had the Clintons shut up and let the black voters of South Carolina do their talking for them, the block African-American vote for Obama would have brought the race issue home to undecided white voters, triggering a pro-Hillary backlash. But they couldn't keep quiet. Their oh-so-subtle racial innuendo, philosophizing bout relative roles of Martin Luther King and President Lyndon Johnson achieved in civil rights, landed them in a cauldron of boiling water.

With nothing else new to say, Hillary, in effect, countered Obama's message of change by saying "You're black." When Bill compared Obama to Jesse Jackson, the point was obvious.

Obama parried with great skill in his victory speech in South Carolina by stipulating that the election was about overcoming divisions and coming together as a nation That brilliant move left the Clintons flat-footed.

Hillary's performance in the week after South Carolina was scripted and prosaic - a mere repetition of her rhetorical lines from the past. Like a juke box, she played poll-tested golden oldies all week - hoping we'd sing along with her choruses.

It seems as if the Clintons, lacking dirt to throw, have nothing to say.

On January 7th, Clinton broke down in tears. this display of emotion during a discussion of how she is affected by campaigning for president - was credited with aiding her comeback in New Jersey following an earlier defeat by Obama in Iowa. Is it possible the once great Clintonian strategy team of Carville and Begala are either out-of-ideas or stymied by having to play it clean?

During a campaign speech today, the eve of Super Tuesday, Hillary once again teared up at Yale University. Could it be the tough, strong, wanna-be leader of the free-world is trying the fragile tear routine again to stop the Obama surge? Will President Clinton use tears and pouts when negotiating with world leaders? How about a foot stomp Hillary? If things go really bad will you get the vapors?

Obama's gains still leave him shy of his mark. Tomorrow may bring a deadening roll call of narrow Hillary wins, particularly in the eight caucus states, where her control of the party apparatus gives her an edge.

Hillary has a reserve army of poor, single, white women whose support is intense and unwavering. Will that be enough to pull her through? Or will Obama's surge continue, with his eloquence and positioning on the diversity issue transforming narrow defeats to victories in a host of toss-up states.

The Republican primaries are all but over. John McCain has leads in eight, with Mitt Romney ahead in only his native Massachusetts and Mike Huckabee leading in Georgia. Most GOP states award delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so McCain's lead in delegates coming out of Tuesday should be insurmountable.

McCain's likely nomination is, of course, very bad news for the Democrats. We are told he is, by far, the candidate most likely to beat Hillary in November. The very immigration bill that made him anathema to many conservatives can help him attract significant Hispanic support, while the bitterness of the Clinton-Obama contest is likely to drive many anti-Hillary Independents and Democrats to support the moderate maverick from Arizona. (Remember how anger at LBJ drove many liberals to vote for Nixon against Humphrey in 1968?)

McCain should have little difficulty in consolidating the Republican and conservative ranks behind him - especially if his adversary is Hillary Clinton. Animosity to the New York senator may be just the elixir McCain needs to unite his party.

OR IS HE?

In this time of media intervention of the voting process, with the majority of the power of the radio, television and print media slanted towards the left, is the American voter being convinced that McCain is the Republican who can unite the country to beat Clinton/Obama?

Is McCain being sold to the voters for the exact opposite reason, being that when the primaries are over and the contest begins again, John McCain is the least likely electable?

Let the games continue. Who will find victory? Wouldn't it be nice if it was the American people? Doubtful but it would be wonderful indeed.

Vote early - Vote often ~ Richard J.Daley, Mayor of Chicago ~ 1955 to 1976