Obama supporters ignore logic

So here’s my question: If it’s such a lead-pipe cinch that Sen. Hillary Clinton can’t win the Democratic nomination, why are so many people indignantly demanding that she drop out? What harm can come from letting this fascinating seven-game series of a primary contest play out?

Indeed, I’d say it’s her patriotic duty to continue. Obama supporters aren’t the only ones who could end up feeling embittered if their candidate gets the bum’s rush. For example, Sen. Barack Obama magnanimously offers to accept 50 percent of Michigan’s disputed delegates — a state where his name did not appear on the ballot. And people say Hillary acts arrogantly “entitled” to the presidency. How many fancy speeches will it take to rationalize THAT away?

Besides, the Clinton-Obama race is bringing voters into the party at record rates. According to USA Today, 172,000 new Democrats have registered in Pennsylvania during the past three weeks alone. Come November, the party’s nominee will need every one to defeat Sen. John McCain in the general election. People who imagine otherwise don’t seem to understand how presidential elections are decided, i.e. by the electoral college.

Anyway, the answer to my rhetorical question is simple: People declaring the race over are employing a number of hidden premises they don’t wish to discuss. Here’s how Daily Kos blogger Markos Moulitsas limns the argument in Newsweek: “No matter how you define victory, Barack Obama holds an insurmountable lead in the race to earn the Democratic nomination. He leads in the one metric that matters most: the pledged delegates chosen directly by Democratic voters. But he also leads in the popular vote, the number of states won and money raised.”

Moulitsas concludes that Clinton’s “ephemeral” chance of victory “rests with a coup by superdelegate,” warning that “if Beltway bigwigs steal a hard-won victory, it would amount to a declaration of civil war.”

Virtually all of this is factually false. An alert eighth-grader would recognize that cash on hand and states won have nothing to do with anything. One can stipulate in advance that GOP nominee McCain will prevail in more states than the Democrat come November. Like Obama, he’ll sweep the states inhabited by more cows than people.

In fact, neither Democratic candidate’s likely to earn enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. Both need “Beltway bigwigs,” i.e. Democratic elected officials, to prevail. What Moulitsas also isn’t saying, indeed what none of the pundits clamoring for Clinton’s withdrawal will say, is that even Obama’s vaunted lead in the popular vote depends upon Michigan and Florida being disenfranchised.

With 10 states and territories yet to vote, Clinton could definitely pull ahead. Never mind all the “who shot John?” arguments over the DNC’s screwball decision to penalize those two crucial swing states for moving their primaries up (although New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina were allowed to). The fairest solution would have been a revote, but Obama supporters have prevented that from happening. Tell me again what a “transformative figure” he is, because on this score, the politician Obama most resembles is George W. Bush.

Finally, there’s this puzzler: Evidently it’s hunky-dory for Massachusetts “superdelegates” like Sens. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Gov. Deval Patrick to pledge their votes to Obama, even though Clinton won that state’s primary decisively. How, then, can Obamaphiles call it an antidemocratic outrage for other superdelegates to support Clinton, even if she wins their states, too? It’s totally illogical.

See what I mean? Let the voters speak, then decide.

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette columnist Gene Lyons can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].