Washington, D.C. (rightcommentary.com): Another Tuesday and another primary. I don’t know about you, but I’ve got primary fatigue. I find it a bit ironic that this time last year, there was near hysteria in the Republican party ranks about a brokered convention. The conventional wisdom at the time was that there would be an inevitable split between Rudy, McCain, and Romney. Then Fred Thompson began thinking about entering - and the “right” of the right wing began to swoon. Everyone was panicked, however, that the convention would be such a disaster - facing an inevitable Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Nominee.

What a difference a year makes.

As it stands tonight, Sen. Obama is in the strongest position to secure the Democrat Party nomination. Sen. Clinton is about 150-160 delegates behind (depending on how WV breaks out tonight). Considering Sen. Obama went from - nobody - to Senator of the State of Illinois - to Democrat Party Nominee is just absolutely amazing. Moreover, he fought (as much as she wanted to fight) a veteran Senator who was thought by many to be the inevitable nominee. She had big organizational talent, big momentum, and a lot of money.

For Obama to be the nominee is nothing but an amazing achievement that should not be understated. He outfunded, outraced, outcampaigned, and out manuevered Hillary. Period. Nor rain, nor sleet, nor Rev. Wright, nor Bill Ayers, no throwing grandma under the bus could stop Obama.

There is I think, however, some deep reservations about Sen. Obama as the nominee among both pledged and super delegates. I think statements, like Begala’s to Brazille, saying Obama’s constituency is composed of “eggheads and blacks,” while uncouth, represents some deep concerns many Democrats have about Obama’s ability to win the “electoral math.”

Hillary Clinton has decided that her best message is to claim that she can win in November. I’ll be honest - as a Republican - I think she’s probably right. Without question, she is a considerably stronger candidate under the “electoral math” in November. If she was the candidate facing McCain, we could expect that she might beat McCain in some key states - Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan. If she could swing those states - and the map stays essentially as it was in 2004 (which is a likely starting place), then McCain loses to Clinton 297 to 241 delegates.

Problem for Hillary is - it’s too little too late. She cannot effectively argue this close to the end of the race that Obama will lose the general. She needed to get this calculus out to the Super Delegates and out to the pledged delegates before Super Tuesday. She needed to share with delegates her suspicions about Obama’s ability to win key constituencies of the Democratic base - lower income voters, elderly voters, and female voters. As those suspicions became “fact” over time - there might have been time for her to gain momentum with key “political constituencies” within the party. Then land mines like Rev. Wright, Ayers, etc., would have possibly been fatal to Obama. Instead, she pursued a strategy whereby they didn’t distinguish Clinton from Obama, instead attempted to win the war of charm and ideals - and got clobbered by Obama.

Problem for the super delegates, however, is considerably more complicated than just winning in November. They could “end”the debacle at the moment and go with the stronger candidate - Hillary - if they were purely focused on winning the election at hand.

If the party were to decide to anoint Clinton - barring some catastrophic disaster that made Obama o longer viable - I think would cause the constituency of the Democrat Party to implode. I believe it is entirely possible that Obama’s supporters would conclude “the fix is in” and walk away from the party. The Democrat Party has relied heavily on African-Americans and other minorities to win in urban areas. That constituency is a very large and power constituency within the Democrat Party. If they were to alienate that constituency - the Democrats could lose then next 10 Presidential contests before they are able to reform the “FDR Coalition” again and win the White House. Moreover, I believe minorities would also likely walk away from Democrats in the House and Senate.

Many commentators have begun citing a groundswell of black disenchantment with both Bill and Hillary Clinton. African-American voters are particularly annoyed by Bill Clinton’s performance during the South Carolina primary and by James Carville’s description of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Latino, as “Judas” for endorsing Obama over Hillary Clinton.

In short, with many voters, the message is, “Look what we’ve done for you; you should stay in line.” That doesn’t sit well with voters of color. They view it as Northern machine politics or Old South boss politics.

Bottom line is if they are alienated by a Clinton victory - it will largely be perceived as a disenfranchisement and “stealing the election” from Obama.

If Hillary loses outright - and Obama gets to 2025 before she does (presuming that Michigan and Florida are not seated first) - undoubtedly Obama will have problems in November. McCain would likely defeat Obama 290 to 248. McCain would likely win Florida, Ohio, and Michigan. Current polling suggests he would potentially lose Colorado (typically a red state). Nevertheless, Obama’s support during the Primary season is indicative of the polling nationally. Hillary makes a legitimate “November loss” argument - and the polling supports it. I am a big more agnostic - not knowing if Obama’s “Rock Star” status won’t in fact spur moderates and young democrats to the polls.

If Hillary is not the nominee - about 50% of her supporters have told pollsters they won’t vote or will vote for McCain. Tonight in WV, 38% of the Democrats who voted for Hilary said they would vote for Obama if he’s the candidate in the fall. 25% told pollsters they wouldn’t vote. The balance went to McCain. If 70% of Republicans voted for McCain, and about 37% of Democrats vote for him - McCain wins West Virginia. I think a similar calculus is going to play all over the country - and the current polling reflects that in losses of Michigan, Ohio, and in the South.

If Hillary winds up being the nominee, I think Obama ally former Gov. Doug Wilder nails potential for “revolt” within the party correctly:

If the majority of the American people who are participating in these processes, either through caucuses or through primaries, have a majority of those votes going for either of the candidates, and if the super delegates intervene and get in the way of it and say, oh, no, we’re going to determine what’s best, there will be chaos at the convention. It does nothing to help the Democrats. And if you think 1968 was bad, you watch; in 2008, it will be worse.
The threat of 2008 being a repeat of the 1968 convention is no small matter for the Democrats. As CNN reported about the riots:

Outside the official convention proceedings, anti-war demonstrators clashed with 11,900 Chicago police, 7500 Army troops, 7500 Illinois National Guardsmen and 1000 Secret Service agents over 5 days.

The violence centered on two things: the Chicago police forcing protesters out of areas where they were not permitted to be; and protesters clashing with police, and their reinforcements, as they tried to march to the convention site.

The violence began Sunday August 25th. Anti-war leaders had tried to get permits from the city to sleep in Lincoln park and to demonstrate outside of the convention site. Those permit requests were denied, although the city did offer them a permit to protest miles away from the Amphitheater But the protesters were undeterred. When the park was officially closed, Chicago police bombed protesters with tear gas and moved in with billy-clubs to forcibly remove them from the park. Along with the many injuries to anti-war protesters, 17 reporters were attacked by police (including Hal Bruno, who was then a reporter for Newsweek and is now political director for ABC.) Throughout the convention, police would see the press as the enemy. Subsequent battles between police and protesters occurred nightly in Lincoln Park and Grant Park.

Also present that first night and throughout the convention were the famous Beat artists Allen Ginsberg and William Burroughs and French poet Jean Genet. Most events and protests featured speeches from Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.

The worst day of protesting was Wednesday, and was dubbed the “Battle of Michigan Avenue.” Protesters were stopped in their march to the convention site and the media recorded graphic violence on the part of the Chicago police. Many innocent bystanders, reporters and doctors offering medical help were severely beaten by the police. Many hotels where the delegates were staying were affected by the riots. Fumes from the tear gas used by the police and “stink bombs” thrown by the protesters drifted into the buildings. (One of those affected was the Conrad Hilton, the headquarters for the Democratic party and the press.)

Another major clash occurred on the final day of the convention, when protesters tried once again to reach the convention center. They were twice turned away. A barricade was put up around the convention center to prevent anyone without credentials from entering the facility.

When the convention was finally over, the Chicago police reported 589 arrests had been made and 119 police and 100 protesters were injured. The riots, which were widely covered by the media, led to a government funded study to determine the cause of the violence. The study was led by Daniel Walker, a Democratic businessman from Illinois who would ran successfully for governor in Illinois in 1972. The study placed most of the blame on the Chicago police. Mayor Daley disagreed with the report and issued the Chicago police a pay raise.

I point this out because often people refer to the 1968 riots as having been the result of Humphrey’s nomination over McCarthy. It wasn’t - it was the result of anti-war protesters clashing with Daley’s police department. Humphrey came to the convention as a very strong candidate - with most of the delegates needed to win. Although there was some considerable floor wrangling - it was not Humphrey’s nomination that sparked the riots.

Historians of political culture point to the convention as a breaking point. It’s when the fissures that would almost destroy the party in the 70s were first exposed.

Remember the context: before the convention, MLK had been assassinated. So was RFK. The energy in the party came from identity politics activists and from college students who had organized for Eugene McCarthy.

Is 2008 really like 1968? Elect Obama (McCarthy) or watch the riots in the streets?

I don’t know - possibly. I know that it’s a big enough risk that many Super Delegates are unwilling to accept the risk. So while they may feel Obama will lose in November, they appear to be unwilling to rectify that problem for fear of causing the party to rip itself apart.