On a torturous path from Eleanor Clift’s Newsweek article today (4-18-08), and an op-ed piece in the Washington Post by Democratic pollster Doug Shoen (4-16-08), we arrive at the long-expected point where nut-cutting takes place in the Democratic marathon for the nomination.

None of the writers or periodicals may be counted as part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, yet all seem to agree that Hillary Clinton (who I predicted in January would sew-up the nomination in February), is NOT going to be her party’s nominee in Denver. The reasons are mathematical, political, historical and emotional.

Math first: 2,024 delegate votes are needed to win the nomination. The latest tabulation from Real Clear Politics gives Barak Obama 1,648 votes (1,415 pledged plus 233 Super Delegates) and Hillary Clinton 1,507 (1,251 pledged plus 256 Super Delegates). That is a 151 total delegate lead for Obama. But Clinton holds a slight (23) lead in Super Delegates. In order to secure the nomination, as of this split-second (6:18 PM, Friday, April 18, 2008), Obama needs an additional 376 votes from whatever source and Clinton needs 517. Where are the available votes?

Pennsylvanians go to the polls next Tuesday, April 22. At stake are 188 pledged delegates. I used to know which states apportioned delegates proportionally and which were winner-take-all but I can’t find that website at the moment. No matter. Democrats – ever the champions of the smallest fragment of their coalition at the expense of their most important – almost always choose the proportional route (whereas Republicans – equally subservient to their minor coalition partners – pander to them verbally and gig them electorally by granting votes on a winner-take-all basis). In 2008, polling is the equivalent of rolling dice, but let’s take the latest RCP average in PA and give Clinton 52.8% of the vote and Obama 47.2%. My calculator tells me that Clinton will emerge with 1,606 delegates and Obama will emerge with 1,737; reducing Obama’s lead by a mere 20 delegates – from 151 to 131.

Then there’s NC and IN on May 5. HO-HUM. In NC Obama will more than make up his loss in PA. He is also leading Clinton by five points in Indiana (neighbor of his home state of IL) so the net result will be a +150 total delegate lead for Obama. When the primary voters have finished, Obama will be in the lead. What’s a girl to do? Mr. Shoen, who comes to the same numerical conclusions as I, insists that Clinton must abandon what has, up to now, been a “positive” campaign style and clamp her teeth firmly on Obama’s throat. The only votes available to break the deadlock belong to Super delegates and Clinton can only win by persuading them that Obama is too liberal to win against John McCain in November. More on that anon.

History: Now, the prospect of Hillary Clinton accusing ANYONE of being “too liberal” is so hilarious that it needs no nudge from me. Nevertheless, her party has a rich history of losing elections from this accusation going back more than half a century. Adlai Stevenson (1952 and 1956), Hubert Humphrey (1968), George McGovern (1972), Walter Mondale (1984), Michael Dukakis (1988), and John Kerry (2004). Furthermore, those Democrats who have won during the same period have usually been regarded as more moderate than their chief rivals of either party (Kennedy vs Johnson in 1960, Johnson vs Goldwater in 1964). The last two winning Democrats, Carter and Clinton, were from the moderate wing of the party and were also southerners. Painting one’s opponent in vibrant shades of pink has been a winning tactic for decades.

Politics: Let’s return to the Super delegates. Shoen makes the excellent point that the S-D’s have had the power to put an end to the contest from the hour the votes in Ohio and Texas were counted almost seven weeks ago. That they have not availed themselves of that power is curious to say the least. In terms of popular votes, states won and delegates committed, Obama is the obvious choice but there has been no stampede of S-D’s to his banner. The thing demands some sort of explanation and Shoen provides one when he observes that Clinton has raised enough doubt about Barama’s electability in November to give them pause. He recommends that she continue hacking away.

Well, one of the preeminent truths of politics (or any other competitive enterprise) is that you don’t stop fighting just because you’re behind. Quite the contrary! Most political campaigns turn negative at that point when the candidate in second place realizes that attack is preferable to defeat and is, in fact, the only alternative. In a primary campaign, where the opposing candidates generally agree on the major issues, opportunities for really stinging attacks are rare. Let’s review some of the recent attacks on gaffes.

• Clinton said that she (along with Chelsea), dodged sniper fire while on a trip to Bosnia while she was First Lady. Obama and his cohorts took good advantage of this fiction to drive up Clinton’s considerable negatives and gained some precious points in PA. Nevertheless, most of the bayoneting was done by people associated with Obama’s campaign rather than the candidate himself. This is in keeping with the dictum that leaders defend the lofty high ground and let the serfs throw themselves on the attacking knights.
• Obama sat for some twenty years in his church while his pastor, from time-to-time, damned America and he uttered no protest that could be heard outside his Sunday afternoon dinner table. Not even Clinton’s serfs could attack this directly because it related to the sensitive issue of Obama’s race. The media was left to haul this water and their efforts achieved some small advantage for Clinton.
• Obama said that rural Americans cling to guns and religion because they are “bitter” about the government’s failure to make their lives an unending cavalcade of tractor pulls and midget mud wrassling. This is important, but not for the reasons given for the past week. To hear the media and the Clintonistas howl, one would think that Obama had called middle America a passel of honkeys. It’s important because Clinton herself participated in the attack as it did not relate to white-on-black racism (as did the preacher nonsense) and because she probably agrees with Obama’s sentiment.

When attacks turn on gaffes committed by the opponent, it is a declaration that no substantive issues separate the candidates and the campaigns have turned to the insignificant verbiage. Both the verbiage and the attacks irritate American voters. According to the Associated Press, since the “bitter” comment was revealed, Obama has gained six convention super delegates, to four for Clinton. Furthermore, according to AP, it appears (4-19-08 at 6:52 PM) that S-D’s are moving to Obama as he narrows Clinton’s lead in PA.

If Clinton’s only hope for attracting S-D’s is to convince them that Obama can’t win in November, she shot herself in the knee during the latest debate when she responded “yes, yes, yes” when asked whether her rival could win the White House. She could do nothing else herself. Her acolytes and her husband can raise such doubts behind the scenes, but for her to do it openly, in a televised debate, would be to shoot herself in BOTH knees.

Emotional: Media reports of voter reactions to Obama’s “bitter” gaffe indicate that it was more damaging than the Rev. Wright’s tirades against our nation. Clinton’s gaffe regarding gunfire in Bosnia seems to have confirmed many voters’ suspicion that she plays fast and loose with the facts. Most of the subsequent preaching was aimed at the choir and few actual votes probably changed except among the truly Undecided. Remember, these folks are bored by the issues that concern most voters and look to character issues when making their decision. In that respect, Hillary’s gaffe was more telling because Barak’s gaffes were related (tenuously) to real issues while Clinton’s spoke to her honesty. Accordingly, her already high negatives went up a notch or two and this was reflected in daily poll results which show Obama gaining on her in PA and widening his lead in NC. S-D’s are not immune to poll results and they are beginning to conclude that, issues of electability notwithstanding, he is their man.

The truly bitter news is for Clinton and neither Shoen nor Clift seems aware of it. The matrix of mathematical, historical, political and emotional factors involved in the past few weeks indicate that she will not be President of the United States next year or any other year. The goal toward which her life has been directed since Barak Obama was applying Clearasil has already slipped from her grasp and will never be available to her again. If, somehow, beyond all present hope, she succeeds in snatching her party’s nomination from Obama, the cries of “corrupt bargain” will make its 1824 precedent pale by comparison. Stalwarts of both candidates indicate that some 20% from both camps will not vote for the other should the nomination go against them. But, if Obama wins, most of Hillary’s “bitter” partisans will return to the fold rather than see another Republican in the White House.

The same cannot be said of Obama’s supporters should Clinton seize the prize. The largest and most reliable faction within the Democratic coalition will be convinced that their man was robbed of his historical mission by the white-dominated, inside-the-beltway, good-old-boy (and, now, girl) network that has been driving them to “religion and guns” for the better part of this and the previous century. It is not a purely racial matter, though that will be a large part of it. Senator Barak Obama has run a truly remarkable campaign against his party’s once sure-thing. He has created a diverse coalition of supporters, many of whom probably have grave misgivings about his extremely liberal position on most substantive issues, but are caught up in the excitement he has generated.

To belabor the obvious, if Clinton cannot win the nomination this year she will never be President. But if she wins the nomination this year, she will also never be President. Her only chance to grasp the brass ring is coming to an end. And for Hillary Rodham Clinton, that is bitter, bitter, bitter.