Due to the underwhelming response to our initial suggestions to the superdelegates on what criteria to apply when selecting the nominee, we and our friends in TV land have gone back to our jungle hideaway to tweak our eminently reasonable suggestions on resolving the coming impasse.  Forget "most pledged delegates," "popular vote winner," "winner of most states" and other tried formulations.  These suggestions apply time honored American techniques that are guaranteed to  produce a nominee with legitimacy and a healthy ratings boost.  Here they are:

1.  From now through the convention, the candidates will live together in isolation in a townhouse in Miami’s famous South Beach neighborhood where their every move will be will be recorded by video cameras and microphones. From a sociological perspective, this will demonstrate how the candidates react when brought into contact to and forced into close confinement with people who lie outside their "comfort zone," since they hold different opinions, express different ideals, and come from different backgrounds. The candidates will be required to do housework as they see fit, and will be periodically set tasks by the superdelegates themselves.  The tasks will be designed to test their team-working abilities and community spirit.  During the final two weeks before the convention, the candidates will be joined in the house by their spouses and offspring.  Viewers  will be able to watch a continuous 24-hour feed on the internet or tune in for updates every  evening through an exclusive arrangement with CNN.  On the final night of the convention, registered democrats can call in to an 800 number to express their preference.

2.  The candidates will be hooked up to a lie detector machine and asked a series of potentially embarrassing personal questions.  The subject matter of the questions will grow more difficult with each correct answer given and – with the candidates’ spouses watching from the studio audience – telling the truth becomes harder.  Imagine Hillary asked about Bill’s infidelities and Barack about the last time he smoked weed.  The possibilities are endless as we really get to know the candidates.

3.  Each candidate will be given an agency of the US government to run for one week.  At the end of the week, the candidates will meet in the boardroom with Donald Trump.  The Donald, his son, Donald Redux, and daughter, Ivanka, will review each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.  The Donald will then anoint one of them the nominee and inform the other that he/she has been fired.


4.  The candidates will compete in a series of physical and mental contests designed to test their abilities in the areas important to a potential POTUS.  The specific contests might include: the board game RISK (to determine who would make the best commander in chief), Texas hold-em (diplomatic skills), three-on-three pickup basketball with each candidate allowed to choose one professional and one celebrity teammate (judgment), and a spelling bee (grace under pressure).


5.  The candidates and select members of their staffs will be sent to a remote wilderness area in Alaska with nothing but tents, sleeping bags and spears.  There they will live on nuts, berries and whatever they can manage to hunt.  Each week there will be competitions – some of which will involve eating oversized indigenous insects – that will result in one side’s staff receiving immunity while the other side will have to send one person home.  This will continue until one candidate is left.  The convention will be re-named the Tribal Council and the arena will be decorated with torches and replicas of primitive masks.

6.  The candidates will go on a series of dates with internet/reality TV star and avowed bisexual Tila Tequila.  The one who wins her affections will be the nominee.  

Any other suggestions will be considered. 
   

By now it seems obvious that neither candidate will win enough “pledged” delegates to secure the Democratic Party nomination without the intervention of the so-called “super” delegates – the people referred to in the good old days as “party bosses.”  There has been much heated discussion on these boards about what criteria these bigwigs should apply in selecting the nominee.  We here at Comandante Uno (together with our friends at the 24 hour news networks) have put our heads together and come up with some suggestions for a fair and probing process guaranteed to break the logjam and produce record-shattering ratings for the networks.


1.  The candidates will live together in a two-bedroom townhouse in South Beach where their every move will be documented by hidden video camera and broadcast over the internet.  Each day, a half-hour highlight package will be broadcast in lieu of the network news.  Halfway through the season, the candidates will be joined by their respective spouses.  This is sure to boost ratings.  At the convention, there will be a one hour period in which registered democrats can log on or call in to an 800 number to express their preference.


2.  The candidates will engage in a “Superstars” type of competition, but with individual events tailored to the job requirements for POTUS.  For example, a game of RISK would go a long way to determining who would make the best commander in chief.  The candidates’ diplomatic skills would be tested in poker.  A three-on-three game of pickup basketball game each candidate allowed to choose one professional and one celebrity teammate – to help us assess what kind of advisers they would surround themselves with.  A spelling bee will test their grace under pressure.  You get the picture.

 
3.  The candidates will be hooked up to a lie detector machine and asked a series of potentially embarrassing personal questions without lying.  The subject matter of the questions will grow more difficult with each correct answer given and – with the candidates’ spouses watching from the studio audience – will truth becomes harder.  Imagine the possibilities as we really get to know the candidates.  


4.  The candidates will be given a branch of the US government to run for one week.  At the end of the week, they will meet in the boardroom with Donald Trump who, assisted by his son Donald and daughter Ivanka will assess their strengths and weaknesses and decide who gets the job and who gets fired.


5.  Similar to #1 above, but this time the candidates are sent to a remote wilderness in Alaska (I would have said Labrador, but it has to be in the US) along with five members of their campaign staffs.  There they will have to make do on nuts, berries and whatever they can manage to hunt.  Each week there will be competitions – of course some of these have to involve eating some oversized indigenous insect – that will result in one side’s staff receiving immunity while another side must jettison one of their own.  This will continue until one candidate is left.  Jeff Probst will host.  


Additional suggestions are welcome.  

I've been reading a number of Obama supporters who claim  that the candidate with the lead in pledged delegates should be the nominee; even if the number does not put their man over the top, it would be undemocratic to ignore the will of the voters.   Fair enough.  But isn't it hypocritical that the same people claim to have "won" Texas because the undemocratic system of allocation leaves Obama with more pledged delegates even though he received fewer votes?  (Likewise with Nevada).  Seems to me he can't have it both ways.   But what do I know? 

Walter Shapiro at Salon argues that a prolonged fight for the nomination is good for the Democrats.  Since I'm inept with the formatting, I'll include his money quote here:

"John McCain announced Tuesday that he would be heading for Florida on Thursday to campaign in West Palm Beach. But the problem McCain faces is that he still has a faceless opponent with the Democratic race far from settled. So, in effect, McCain will be shadowboxing against a vague entity called Obama-Clinton. The result is that (just wait and see) McCain will find it difficult to make news since there is no longer any drama to anything that he does until it becomes time to pick a running mate. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which monitors media coverage, found that last week the Democratic race generated four times the attention of the Republicans. And that news blackout occurred when McCain still had a nominal opponent in Mike Huckabee."

While it's not an unreasonable point, I'm not persuaded.  The fact is that the next few months will see two Democrats spending obscene amounts of money tearing each other down, rather than going after the real target, John McCain.  At the end of this process, a substantial number will feel cheated and embittered.  Many are likely to turn away from the spectacle altogether.  It will only get worse if the convention becomes really messy - a possibility that appears increasingly likely.

    

They promised us a cakewalk. Said it would be over soon and concealed the true cost in blood and treasure. Diverted precious resources from the fight against our true enemy. Now, their mistakes have left us divided and without a clear exit strategy. Yes, it's time to break out the dreaded "Q" word. We are mired in yet another quagmire.

But no, I'm not talking about Iraq. It's the Democratic nominating process, brought to you by the Democratic Party elders themselves.

The process that was supposed to be over by Super Tuesday has spun out of control. Hundreds of millions of dollars each month are spent by Dems seeking to bloody each other while the Republicans regroup and get stronger. A pissing contest with Florida and Michigan results in the disenfranchisement of voters in those states. In the meantime a byzantine patchwork of democratic and semi-democratic contests stretches out for months with no prospect of either side securing a sufficient number of delegates to win the nomination, ensuring that the ultimate pick will be swung back to those same brilliant party elders who brought us this disaster in the first place.


Does anyone see a way out? I sure haven't heard one yet.

By now, the story line has been writ by the punditry.  By going negative, raising questions about Obama’s fitness to be commander in chief and his ambiguous connection to the shady developer (with a shady name to match) Rezko, Hillary has regained her footing and put the brakes on Obama’s seemingly unstoppable momentum. To get his mojo back, Obama must do the same.  While he has tried to remain above the fray, disdaining “politics as usual,” young Barack is implored jump in the sandbox and “get tough” with old broad Hillary. 


At the same time, the venerable-in-its-own-mind NYT Editorial page, carrying judgment from on high, likens the campaign thus far to a “schoolyard shoving match,” that has not reflected either the intense voter interest or the candidates’ capacious intellects.  Secure in their knowledge of what’s best for us, the Times implores the candidates – 20-some-odd debates later – to “finally” conduct a “serious” debate about “major” issues.  As if the 20-minute disquisition on the merits of their competing (and largely similar) health care plans will somehow illuminate the candidates differences sufficiently to break the current logjam and allow us to move on the serious business of debating the Republicans, with whom there are real differences to illuminate.  


Lamely heeding the call to go negative Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod (Mark Penn’s counterpart – why do we know so little about him?), hits Clinton for not releasing her most recent tax return and papers as first lady.  Obama responds with his own peeve about Clinton “working the refs.”  Now, we are presented with NAFTAgate, which is sufficiently opaque and inscrutable in its minutia to glaze the eyes of even the most meticulous and committed political junkies and highly unlikely to sway many voters either way.    


All in all, this is pretty mild stuff, I’d say, particularly when stacked up against Vince Foster, Whitewater, Travelgate, Cattle-Futuresgate and all the other gates we were treated to by the lunatic, Clinton-hating fringe - discredited tales all, but sufficient in their sheer volume to raise the spectre of dirty dealing.  Others have been bandied about in the blogosphere with little traction: i.e., recent claims of photo darkening a la OJ Simpson.  So too, horror of Obama supporters at the apparent success of political tricks like Clinton’s instantly infamous “red phone” ad – a time honored tradition taken directly from the page of that famously winning playbook authored by…. Fritz Mondale? – seems a bit overblown.  After decrying the politics of the past, they are now calling on their man to reach back and, in a jiu jitsu maneuver, use them himself.  But of course, this is for a higher purpose: to move us on to a higher level of discourse.  


And, of course, therein lies the conundrum he faces.  After campaigning on a new brand of politics that disdains the negative, does he allow himself to be sucked back in?  


As I see it, Obama needs to be very cautious.  He’s at his best when he is high-minded and aspirational.  On the few occasions he has gone negative, it sounds a bit whiny for my taste.  Also, he must bear in mind that Hillary’s support seems to rise in direct proportion to the attacks on her.  It happened most famously with Monica, but also during her first Senate campaign when Rick Lazio invaded her space during their debate and in this campaign when the punditocracy began writing her political obituary after New Hampshire and before the latest, March 4, primaries.  


On the other hand, if you’re for Obama, you have to wonder how he’s going to get over the top.  While he’s cornered the support of the progressive, reform-minded wing of the party as well as African Americans, he has not managed to connect with traditional, so-called lunch pail Democrats more concerned with pocketbook issues, more hawkish on National Security, and less constitutionally inclined to favor an upstart over someone who is seen as having paid her dues.  Will going negative help or hurt him in winning this constituency?    

 
If you’ve read this far expecting an answer, you won’t get it from me.  (Although I must congratulate you just for reading this far, I didn’t expect it.)  I have more important things to attend to - like my own, real live crying baby.  One thing is for sure.  As long as the Dems are flinging dirt around the sandbox, the real winners will be the 24-hour news networks and John McCain.      

According to the Washington Post, two-thirds of Democrats would prefer that Hillary Clinton remain in the race if she wins either Ohio or Texas.


Huh?  Let's think about that for a second.  I'm not a pollster or even an avid poll watcher, but it's fair to say that at least half of all Dems prefer Obama as the nominee.   And at least 50 percent of them  who voted so far have voted for him.  So, it would seem many who prefer Obama, indeed, many who voted for him, still want Hillary to remain in the race.    


Am I missing something here?  I can't fathom why.  One could, I suppose, make the argument that a prolonged race keeps a spotlight on the candidates and allows them to build up their organizations in advance of the general election.  But it's hard to believe that the two-thirds reflected in that poll were thinking so far ahead.  Even if they were, the argument doesn't go very far.  Obviously, the Democrats would be better off with a nominee who could in the next few months spend his/her money and time attacking John McCain instead of each other.  Add to that the divisions that have become apparent and will only grow more entrenched as Dems line up behind their candidates.  Particularly among the Obama faithful, there seems a sense that if Clinton prevails it would only be through some illegitimate, Rovian subterfuge, driving them either toward McCain or apathy.  An unhealthy  brew indeed.


Nor can the conundrum be explained by the press coverage, as some will I'm sure suggest.  While one would expect that the media would prefer a prolonged fight through the convention - after all, it draws more readers and viewers - my admittedly unscientific impression has been that the majority of the coverage has inclined toward burying Hillary, perhaps prematurely.  The punditocracy, in particular, has produced a predictable steady stream of Hillary moratoriums this past few weeks.  Just goes to show that reporters march to the beat of the preconceived story line, even when it conflicts with the financial interest of their employers; even when the electorate feels otherwise.


But it’s in those moratoriums that I believe the answer lies.  Support for Hillary increases in lockstep with the criticism.  Dare I say it’s our sympathy for her that prevents us from finally letting go.  It happened with Bill’s infidelity.  Hillary, long reviled by so many for so many (mostly inane) reasons, became a sympathetic figure and her approval ratings followed.  It happened in her first New York Senate campaign when Lazio invaded her space during their debate.  It happened in New Hampshire when, seeing what appeared to be an inevitable and in her view deserved march toward the nomination threatened by an upstart, she shed a (genuine, I believe) tear.  It is happening, I believe, right now.  And it’s why her campaign may be revived tonight.  We can’t bear to see this woman kicked to the curb, again.  


By the same token, though, neither can we embrace her fully.  There’s still that nagging feeling that the tear she cried was for her, not for us; that maddening refusal to cop to her mistake on the Iraq war; her sense of entitlement; her attacks (i.e., the insulting red phone ad, the mocking of “celestial choirs”) that play us for dupes.  Sure, we know she works hard.  She’s been through the wars.  She’s shown an impressive command of issues and put forth a detailed and admirable set of policy prescriptions.  But in the final analysis, she just can’t seem to effectively convey the type of authenticity voters respond to.                   


So where does that leave us?  Seems to me, at least Pennsylvania and probably beyond.  As Neil Sedaka sang: “Breaking up is hard to do.”


Disclosure:  I have at times favored Clinton, Obama, Edwards, even for a brief period Richardson, and might have gone for Biden or Dodd if either had been taken as seriously as he should have been.  It all depends on which article or blog annoyed me most on any particular day.