The Kentucky and Oregon Primaries, and Related Matters

THE KENTUCKY AND OREGON PRIMARY RESULTS: IT'S (BASICALLY) A SPLIT-DECISION, WHICH IS A DEFAULT WIN FOR SENATOR OBAMA

Depending on which cable news network you watched the returns from last night's Kentucky and Oregon primaries (if you watched the returns, that is), Senator Clinton scored either a thirty-five or thirty-six percentage point victory in the state of Kentucky (65%-30% or 66%-30%, with the remaining 4-5% of votes cast either for other candidates or some form of "uncommitted"). That being said, Senator Obama won decisively in the state of Oregon (as I write this, the Oregon percentages are 58% for Senator Obama and 42% for Senator Clinton, with votes still coming in and therefore yet to be counted).

The two states feature similar numbers of overall pledged delegates, so it would seem to be the case that in tonight's primaries Senator Clinton will pick up, at best (for her), a few more pledged delegates than Senator Obama. This means that the evening is really a default victory for the frontrunner, as it looks as though Senator Clinton would now have to win an incredible amount of the yet-to-be-determined pledged delegates (and outstanding super-delegates) to challenge Senator Obama's totals.

Senator Obama is no Gary Hart, so I don't anticipate a complete and utter collapse on his part. Therefore, the nomination will be his, because Senator Clinton knows that if she tries to overturn the results after the final primaries (not counting Florida and Michigan) on June 3, she will have to do so in the old-school "smoky back room" manner, in which the leaders of the party machine make deals in order to determine a "winner." That won't fly in 2008. In fact, the area outside of the Democratic National Convention in Denver would be awash in riots in late August if such a thing were seriously attempted and word got out about it (which it would, and quickly)...as would a number of other cities nationwide. Senator Clinton knows that her reputation, as well as that of her party, is on the line, and therefore she will not attempt such a maneuver.

Her only hope is that the delegations of both Florida and Michigan boycott the convention if Senator Obama is the nominee, which I find hard to imagine. But I suppose the possibility of such a bizarre scenario exists, if at this point only in an odd parallel universe, and only with the obvious goading of major Clinton supporters nationwide, which would work to tear the party apart in an election year in which it smells Republican blood in the water. The rest of the party leaders surely wouldn't stand for it, and neither would a huge swath of its voters.

So, how and when she bows out gracefully--and if and when she bows out, it will be done gracefully--will help to determine whether or not Senator Obama will be forced to choose her as his Vice Presidential running mate. I still think such a scenario, though electorally expedient for the Democrats, would quickly devolve into a personality and political power struggle. It's therefore the case that I hope Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are ready to make a congressional deal with her, which would probably result in her becoming the next Senate Majority Leader. (I doubt she'd care to leave the national legislature in order to be governor of New York.)

THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATING PROCESS AND THE RICHARDSONIAN FACTOR

Despite not receiving his endorsement, Senator Clinton is still channeling the political language of Governor Bill Richardson. In her victory speech in Kentucky, she once again stated firmly her commitment to what she called an "energy revolution," which she noted means that new sources of energy must be produced on a mass scale if we are to steady both our domestic and foreign ships, so to speak. I agree with her. So would Governor Richardson, who discussed a similar "energy revolution" for the entirety of his year-long campaign for the presidency. Only when he dropped out of the race last January did Senator Clinton begin to incorporate his term "energy revolution" into her speeches (never once crediting him as the originator of that term, at least insofar as this election cycle is concerned).

I've discussed it before, but as the campaign has gone on, both Senators Clinton and Obama have moved from their more initially cautious approaches regarding the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq to the position they both seem to be taking now, which is the one that Governor Richardson (once again) espoused during the entirety of his campaign: a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops beginning soon after Inauguration Day. Though I am a big fan of Governor Richardson and supported actively his candidacy, I actually think the initial, more cautious withdrawal plans espoused by Senators Clinton and Obama were more realistic and workable. (I am no fan whatsoever of President Bush's war in Iraq; but I am a realist about what the geo-political fallout of a rapid withdrawal would be....)

REGARDING THE GENERAL ELECTION: THEY BOTH COULD WIN; THEY BOTH COULD LOSE

The Clinton campaign has taken to highlighting certain potential electoral maps in order to indicate why their candidate would be a stronger contender than Senator Obama in November's general election. It seems slightly interesting to note, however, that Karl Rove was using the same potential electoral maps (and saying many of the same things regarding them as the Clinton folks) just a few days previous to the Clinton people waving them around....

If you want to judge for yourself who is more "electable," I suggest heading to USA Today's interactive electoral map (at http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/electoral-vote-tracker.htm). Bearing in mind that Senator Obama is stronger at present than Senator Clinton in the upper-Midwest and places such as Oregon and Colorado, and given that Rassmussen Reports now has him tied with Senator McCain in Ohio, he seems to have a lot of potential paths to the presidency. Senator Clinton's potential paths seem more limited in number (particularly if she loses a state such as, say, Wisconsin or Oregon, which are now listed as default-Democrat but are far more supportive of Senator Obama vs. Senator McCain than of Senator Clinton vs. Senator McCain) but are no less achievable if she manages to carry Ohio, which the polls suggest she could very well do.

I tinkered around with the USA Today map a bit tonight and, assuming that he wins all of the default-Democratic states (not a given right now; he NEEDS to work to win both Michigan and Pennsylvania, about which I wrote in a previous post), Senator Obama could win the presidency by scoring victories in New Mexico (whose governor supports him enthusiastically), Colorado (where he is basically tied with Senator McCain), and Missouri...or in Iowa, Missouri, and New Hampshire...or in Virginia, New Hampshire, and New Mexico...or, well, the list goes on and on and on some more. And that assumes that he loses in BOTH Ohio and Florida, which is not a given....

Senator Clinton's paths are a bit more straight-forward, but could prove as bumpy as Senator Obama's potential paths, particularly if she loses in a state like Wisconsin, Oregon, or even Minnesota....

The bottom line is that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are "electable." Conversely, they both could lose, as well, though at this early stage, given the vote totals in the Democratic primaries in swing-states, one would have to think that the advantage is with them. I just hope that they don't start thinking like the Clinton advisor who suggested that "a refrigerator" could be the nominee and win it for the Democrats this time around. That type of thinking suggests overconfidence, which is never a good sign.

QUICK THOUGHTS:

* Pat Buchanan last evening referred to Democrats in Oregon as "spotted-owl leftists," which I take to mean far-left-of-center voters. Whether or not that is true, it is also true that Vice President Gore struggled to win the state in 2000 (he did, but not by much), and Senator Kerry couldn't take a win there for granted until election day of 2004, when they made up their minds to hand him a win, but not a stunning one by any means. The state has leaned to the left in recent presidential elections, but it's been a hard-fought victory for the Democratic nominee each time. Democrats in that state may be slightly to the left of "average" U.S. Democrats, but there are a lot of Republicans and all-important Independents there, too. And Senator Obama is far more popular than Senator Clinton in Oregon right now.... (Psst: watch for Senator McCain to make a real effort to win Oregon in November.)

* Terry McAuliffe must be the most annoying Democrat on the national political scene (which is really saying something). I cringe whenever I so much as see him. His whole persona eminates "embarrassment" in so many ways, some of which I find I don't even know how to articulate, that I don't know where to begin. (Oh, well...the Republicans certainly are not struggling to find embarrassing members of their own party to inflict on us all.)

* Was I hearing things, or did Senator Obama mention the D-Day Normandy landings in his speech in Iowa immediately following the Kentucky and Oregon primaries? Whether it was a figment of my imagination or not, it got me thinking that, unlike Senators Clinton and McCain, when Senator Obama speaks he delivers the American romanticism required of a presidential candidate in a mellifluous manner that, in its own, very unique way, strangely makes me think of the mellifluous manner in which Winston Churchill delivered British romanticism over the airwaves in order to bolster the sprit of his people (and deliver a message of defiance to the Nazis) during World War II. (I am not suggesting that their speech patterns are similar; they are not, but they do both flow in very compelling manners.)

How interesting--just a few days after the Republicans clumsily invoke Neville Chamberlain and appeasement in order to draw comparisons with Senator Obama, Senator Obama's rhetoric begins to reference, at least tangentially, Winston Churchill....

There are those who suggests that beautiful, vibrant words cannot be the end game of politics, and they're right, but so often such words provide great societal moments, which in turn start great societal endeavors. You don't get to the end of anything without a beginning, and it never hurts to be inspired before you start.