Hillary_Clinton.jpg
It was a disappointing night for Obama-backers, but I have to hand it to Sen. Hillary Clinton for refusing to be written off by the pundits and for rebounding so strongly in Ohio, while holding on for a tight win in Texas. Now what?


I actually think Hillary has regained the upper hand in securing the nomination–but the question is, with the delegate count so close and so few primaries left, how will she pull it off, and how soon? And will the delay and continued infighting hand the election to the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain?

If Sen. Clinton wins Pennsylvania next month–which I expect her to do, since the state tends to run more conservative, like Ohio–the two should be about dead even on delegates as of late April.

By winning last night's biggest races, Clinton should put a stop to the high-profile and very damaging defections by super-delegates. It also punctures Obama's aura of invulnerability and historical inevitability.

She can also build a case that since she won all the big states–New York, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas and (soon to be) Pennsylvania–she deserves the nomination.

It's really too bad that Florida and Michigan defied the party leadership and had their primaries disqualified for holding elections before Super Tuesday. These are two key states in the general election, and to leave them out in such a close primary race is a terrible development for the Democrats.

I would like to see a “do-over,” with both states holding new primaries in mid-to-late May or early June to settle this once and for all.

I don't agree at all with the calls of Clinton's campaign staff to seat the delegates from both states (not surprising, since she “won” both), as neither candidate campaigned there because of the party's excommunication. Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.

However, I suspect Clinton would win both states in a do-over–and perhaps that should be considered when picking the nominee, since I doubt the party will “reward” either state that went rogue by giving them another shot–with the likelihood that the outcome could decide the nomination.

John Edwards is another wild card. By “suspending” rather than formally ending his campaign, he retained his delegates. While he can't assign them to anyone else, his endorsement would go a long way towards convincing them to go with his choice. He has 60 or so delegates, I believe, which could make a big difference in a photo finish.

What would it take to get Edwards' backing? Perhaps a promise to appoint him Secretary of Health and Human Services, charged with implementing a universal health insurance plan. Since he came up with the first and most comprehensive health care reform plan, he would be a perfect choice for that job in either administration.

The bad news is that while the Democrats fight on to choose a nominee, McCain has all this down time to get some badly needed rest (he is 71, after all), raise some desperately needed funds, put together a bigger and better campaign organization, build his support among skeptical conservatives, and still take his shots against both Obama and Clinton without having to actually debate either head on until fall.

I still think Obama has a much better shot of beating McCain than does Clinton, despite the experience factor. (In fact, McCain had the best line of the week when, in response to the ad war started by Clinton over who was most qualified to “answer the phone” when it rings during a crisis at 3 a.m. in the White House, he quipped that obviously, given his 50 years of experience in the military and Congress, he was the most qualified of the three.)

I continue to believe only Obama can beat McCain in any of the Southern states. He would mobilize blacks and young voters in record numbers, which could put him over the top in key swing states such as Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania–yet those two voting blocks might mope and stay home on Election Day if their hero fails to secure the nomination. Plus Obama doesn't have the baggage Clinton must carry.

Would those factors be moot if Obama were to be the vice presidential candidate? Would a Clinton-Obama ticket be unbeatable? Perhaps, but I don't see Clinton risking being upstaged by someone she sees as a charismatic upstart.

What do you folks think?

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader

Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:

  • Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
  • Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
  • Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
  • Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.