DUCKPOND

With the latest, and to me surprising, victory in the Maine caucuses, the candidacy of Obama would seem to be on a roll. Yet that does not take account of the influence of Democratic Party rules, and indeed, according to Cockburn and St Clair at CounterPunch there are several precedents where candidates with the lead in popular support have lost the nomination noting the cases of Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson.

Their article recounts how Obama won clearly in Alabama, but because the convention delegates are reapportioned on the basis of the distribution of congressional districts, Clinton and Obama ended up with an equal number of delegates. Secondly it seems that in some states delegates are not like electoral college votes, and the delegates have sometimes changed their allegiance. Despite the loss of manufacturing jobs that we hear about, the weakness in the Obama campaign is that while he has the support of many activists he has not attracted the white working class vote and traditional institutional supporters of the Democratic Party such as trade unions.

Clinton was a corporate lawyer and she is attracting the support of the less well off white voters. So it seems to me at some point, even before entering the field against McCain, Obama has to start to make the connection between the War, defence spending and the lack of public investment in health, education and infrastructure. And if that is politically unrealistic, to identify and garner support on the basis of opposition to the Iraq War. To be successful as a presidential candidate, Obama must attract the enthusiasm of both the activists and the traditional Democratic base.

We will see what happens in Pennyslvannia, Ohio and Texas. Will Obama be rolled?

By way of contrast, David Kaiser at History Unfolding while not disagreeing about the facts on the ground is far more optimistic about the process:

Barack Obama took a giant step towards the Democratic nomination last night. CNN’s delegate count shows that he substantially closed the delegate gap between him and Hillary Clinton, and now trails by just 1100 to 1039. Since Clinton leads in unelected superdelegates by 223-131, that means that Barack has passed her in delegates chosen by the voters, and if that trend continues, I think most superdelegates will be forced to change their minds and vote for him as well to preserve the credibility of the primary process (which is functioning far better than it ever has in American history.) A terrific fight looms over delegates from Michigan and Florida, but it hardly seems possible that it will be decided according to the results of the rogue primaries they held, in which Clinton was the only participant. Obama has the momentum (and will have more after the “Beltway” primaries this Tuesday), and, astonishingly, greater financial resources. Clinton, on the other hand, can still hope that the same demographics that carried her to victory in most of the Northeast and in California (blue-collar whites and Hispanics) can do the same in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas early next month. That is not impossible.

At The Huffington Post, James Zorby quotes Bob Dylan lyrics from “Ballad for a Thin Man” :”Something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is. Do you Mr Jones?” and makes these observations:

First, ignoring the reality of this still-emerging movement comes with a risk to Democrats. Obama was right when he observed at a press conference last week that, should he win, Clinton’s voters would support him; but should she win, his voters would not necessarily support her. The movement he has unleashed is not focused on just winning. That is too limited and too cynical a goal for his supporters. They do not seek to power for its own sake, they seek to bring about fundamental change.

Secondly, it is important to note that while Obama has been the inspiration that launched this movement, but it will have the power to drive him. Expectations for change, once created, cannot easily be let down.

Postscript:

Refer to John Barrdear’s post at his blog for the current figures in relation to the pledged and non-pledged votes pointing out the importance of selecting a winner, which they failed to do on the previous occasions .