What does it take for Senator Clinton to win the majority of the elected delegates to the Democratic Convention?  <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008”  Wikipedia </a> has a good tabulation of delegates selected so far in the primary process.  To date, the total elected delegates are:  Clinton - 1219, Obama - 1362, with 67 either unallocated or allocated to candidates no longer in the race.  So, Obama has a 143 delegate lead in elected delegates, as of now.

There are still 538 delegates to be elected in the Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, etc. elections/caucuses.  (Florida and Michigan not included in the totals.)  Delegates are awarded roughly proportional to the votes each candidate gets.

In order for Senator Clinton to gain 144 delegates on Obama, thus leading in elected delegates, she needs to win the remaining elections/caucuses by an average of 57% to 43%, and that assumes all 67 of the unallocated delegates go to Clinton.  If those are split 50-50, Clinton needs to win by about 63% to 37%.  This is certainly possible.

It is also possible for a comet to strike the Earth next year.

If Obama makes a mistake comparable to endorsing McCain for President, Clinton stands a good chance.  But, Senator Clinton has preempted him in doing that, so even that might not be enough.

If Florida and Michigan are able to get their ducks in a row and select delegates in a manner that complies with the party rules they agreed to, this analysis is slightly different, but unless Clinton wins a huge percentage of the delegates in both states the results are about the same.

We continue to see otherwise intelligent Democrats talking about the “Commander in Chief” job as if it were the most important part of being President.  It isn’t.  There is a single phrase in the Constitution which uses that term, and it does so only to indicate that the military is subordinate to the civilian government.  There is no actual “Commander in Chief” job to be done.

The President doesn’t lead troops into battle, he doesn’t formulate military strategy, he doesn’t participate in military activity planning.  The most he does, as Commander in Chief, is approve overall goals and strategies, as presented to him by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  

The single qualification for handling this minor role is good judgement.  The President needs to be able to judge the  motives of his staff in making recommendations to him.  He needs to be able to judge the motives of Congress when a military budget is approved.  He needs to be able to judge the motives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in making their recommendations.  Judgement is the quality that a President needs most for all of his responsibilities, but especially for his responsibility for approving military activity.

Harry Truman could be seen as the archetype of a “Commander in Chief”, given his control over General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War. MacArthur wanted to make his own decisions about how to conduct that war, what the objectives were, and how to achieve those objectives.  When Truman saw that MacArthur was motivated primarily by delusions of grandeur, he simply replaced him.  He didn’t argue with him.  He didn’t go along with him.  He acted as MacArthur’s superior and replaced him, even though MacArthur was seen by the majority of Americans at that time as a hero, always right.

Of all the surviving candidates for President today, two of them can be immediately dismissed as failing the judgement test.  Both of those people were unable to correctly judge the motives of President Bush and his administration in driving the nation to an unnecessary war.  A very large percentage of Americans, and most of the world’s citizens correctly made that judgement.  But, Clinton and McCain didn’t.

When President Bush asked for permission to attack Iran, by designating part of the Iranian military as a terrorist organization, those same two were unable to correctly judge Bush’s motives.  But, a very large percentage, probably over 50%, of Americans readily understood those motives.  Hardly a recommendation for either of them to become “Commander in Chief”.

By default that leaves us with only one Presidential candidate qualified to become the new “Commander in Chief”.  Even here, the other two candidates demonstrate their lack of good judgement by failing to acknowledge this simple fact.

Consider that Senator Clinton virtually endorsed Senator McCain as our new “Commander in Chief” today.  Given that she has claimed to be seeking that job herself she once again demonstrated the abysmal judgement that disqualifies her for that job.