Playing hard may have won Hillary Clinton a few delegates, but at the cost of the Democratic Party's chances to take the presidency, writes James Zogby* Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton may have won three of four primaries 4 March, gaining needed momentum for her flagging campaign, but in the end the cost of these wins may prove too high. First and foremost is the fact that, despite the victories, she still cannot capture the nomination unless there is a party-splitting fight or equally damaging rule change. After Super Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama proceeded to win 12 contests in a row, amassing an elected delegate total that Clinton cannot surpass. Before 4 March, Obama had won 24 state contests to Clinton's 11, and he led by 160 delegates. Clinton's three victories will only net her campaign six delegates, reducing Obama's lead to a still insurmountable 154. Political analysts looking forward to the remaining 12 states to hold primaries and caucuses argue that unless Clinton wins them all by an average of 65 per cent -- an impossible scenario -- she cannot catch up. This, therefore, means that Obama will go to the convention in Denver with more elected delegates than Clinton, though not the outright majority needed to win the nomination. Two options will then remain. One is that so- called superdelegates will decide the winner. The danger here is that if the superdelegates vote to give the nomination to the second-place Clinton, the Democratic Party may well emerge from the convention divided, and with a wounded nominee. Obama has not only energised African Americans, but also mobilised a movement of young people with a restored faith in politics. Along the way, he recruited tens of thousands of volunteers and received contributions from an unprecedented 1.1 million donors (most of them for $100 or less). His campaign bears many of the trademarks of a social movement. Because of this, many of those he has energised and mobilised will not simply follow a nominee whom they feel won a "fixed" contest and represents "politics as usual". Another party-splitting scenario proposed by the Clinton campaign is their insistence on having delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention. Michigan and Florida broke party rules, had their primaries annulled, and saw none of the candidates campaigning in either state. These elections were not real contests. Clinton won in Michigan because she was the only major candidate who remained on the ballot (the others having withdrawn their names), and she won in Florida largely because of name recognition, since Obama honoured the party's pledge not to campaign in the state. Therefore, to reward both states' bad behaviour would compromise the integrity of the election and result in a divided and possibly rancorous Democratic convention. Nevertheless, most Democrats want the Florida and Michigan problems to be fixed -- but not in a manner that would have their non-sanctioned primaries decide the outcome of the convention. A number of options are currently being discussed and it is hoped that this matter can be resolved before too long. Another major reason why the costs of Clinton's victories may be too high has to do with the tactics they utilised to achieve them. Almost since the beginning of this campaign, Hillary Clinton, her former present husband, or campaign operatives, played numerous negative cards in an effort to slow Obama's growing momentum. They played the "Muslim card", the "race card", the "experience card", the "drug card", and the "gender card". None succeeded. And so when, in the last two weeks, the Clinton campaign promised a stepped-up negative assault it was not surprising to see them find still more cards to play. There was, for example, the "fear/security card" (with Clinton claiming that only she -- or her Republican opponent! -- had the experience to defend the country from a terrorist threat), or the "cynicism card" (with Clinton mocking Obama's political rhetoric), or the "scandal card", the "victim of unfair media card", or the "plagiarism card". All of these combined took a toll, not only on Barack Obama, but also on the Democratic constituency. The constant attacks did, at times, appear to throw the Obama campaign slightly off-kilter; but more than that they opened up and deepened some fissures within the Democratic Party itself. As a result, it now appears that about one- fifth of those who voted for Obama have been so angered by these negative tactics that they would be hard-pressed to support Clinton if she were the nominee. Similarly, Clinton has now succeeded in melding the attitudes of about one-fifth of her voters who now say that they will not support Obama should he be the nominee. The negative campaigning worked, but arguably will help Republicans more in November than it helped Hillary Clinton on 4 March. If Senator Clinton's goal was to "hard-foul" and deliver a wounded Obama to the Republicans, she succeeded. A side note: an additional cost to be calculated into all of this has been the price paid by Senator Clinton's husband. Once revered by many Democrats, despite the series of scandals and "triangulations" that characterised his administration, Bill Clinton today appears reduced to a campaign heavy and hatchet man. It is not at all becoming, and more than a little sad. * The writer is president of the Arab American Institute, Washington.
