John_Schwada's Blog

"You can't get to Pennsylvania Avenue without going through Pennsylvania." That's from Hillary Clinton, on the tarmac at Burbank Airport this morning, where the only bullets she was dodging were the incoming questions from reporters.

One of the media refrains during the Q and A: How can you, Ms. Clinton, possibly win the nomination even if you win Pennsylvania?

Clinton's answer: the situation is extremely fluid and everything is on the table; that the loyalty and affiliation of all the Democratic delegates are mutable and changeable, not just the loyalties and affiliations of the superdelegates but also those of the pledged delegates - who are commonly believed to have been elected to simply rubberstamp the results of a primary or a caucus.

In Burbank, Clinton - without skipping a beat or blinking an eye - reminded reporters: "There is no such thing as a pledged delegate. That is a misnomer.....The whole point is delegates, however they are chosen, really need to ask themselves who would be the best president and who would be our best nominee against Senator McCain, and I think that process goes all the way to the convention."

In fact, she's right: the "elected" delegates are not bound by law to vote for the candidate they initially pledged to support...

Getting back to reality: there is no evidence any of Obama's pledged delegates have deserted him or, for that matter, are waffling...Now that would be an extraordinary story.

The arguments Hillary Clinton probably would make to an Obama pledged delegate (or to an uncommitted superdelegate) to get them to switch loyalties or simply join the Clinton team:

- Clinton has won the big, electoral-vote rich states (including New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Ohio, California and, arguably Florida) that are important to winning the general election;
- WHAT IF Clinton wins Pennsylvania and Indiana, picks up a few more states downstream and generally shows she has momentum on her side as the election season progresses;
- WHAT IF polls were to show Hillary doing a better job in a matchup against John McCain than Obama;
- And WHAT IF the polls were to show Obama supporters in earlier primaries, for whatever reason, were having "buyer remorse"?

That's a lot of WHAT IF's. But the Democratic convention is five long months away. Remember: who was the inevitable candidate five months ago, in December, 2007?

On the other hand, the question I would have liked to have asked Clinton if I had been on the tarmac in Burbank this morning (traffic conspired to prevent that): How many superdelegates have committed to your candidacy since your victories in Ohio and Texas and wouldn't you expect those hallmark victories to have already produced some movement toward you?

Undoubtedly her answer would've been: It's still too early. Let the process continue, up to the convention, and then let all the delegates make up their minds based on their best judgment of who would have the best chance of defeating McCain. (I'm still trying to find out how many - if any - superdelegates have joined the Clinton team since the March 4 Ohio-Texas primaries.)

Obviously, Hillary's fortunes could go south (for example, Clinton could lose Pennsylvania) and that would probably deliver the coup de grace to her campaign. But don't count on it. The Clinton's are like the cyborgs in the Terminator series - they are relentless and virtually indestructible.

What do you think:

- Can Clinton still pull it off?
- Can Democrats bury their axes and unite around one candidate (some polls suggest that Obama-ites are loathe to vote for Clinton if she's the nominee and vice-versa)?
- Will disappointed Democrats sit out the election?
- Doesn't this whole situation lend itself to deals in "smoke-filled rooms"?