I concluded my third article on Barack Obama's campaign for the Democratic Party nomination (Black Commentator, February 21) with the following observation:

There is, I suggest, no way to misconstrue the Obama campaign's 2 to 1 electoral victory in the Wisconsin primary as anything but a significant development. One yardstick not yet mentioned in this article for measuring this significance was reported in exit polls. Namely: “That two-thirds of [Wisconsin] voters believed that Obama would be a stronger candidate in the fall [presidential election] and that he was more likely to unite the country.” (Boston Globe, February 20, 2008)

Although the results of the four primaries in Ohio-Texas-Rhode Island-Vermont found Barack Obama on the losing side of the first three states while winning in the fourth, the ingredients comprising the boost to the Obama campaign gained in the Wisconsin primary have remained relatively constant. What this means is that while gaining victories in Ohio and Texas gave new momentum to the Clinton campaign, the “ingredients” comprising the Obama campaign's Wisconsin boost are alive-and-well. This can be understood from an analysis of the data in TABLE II below, which show the fascinating evolution of Barack Obama's support among major Democratic voter blocs between December 2007 and, over a year later, February 2008. These Democratic voter blocs converged in the Wisconsin primary, producing a vibrant Obama electoral efficacy in subsequent Democratic primaries, enabling him to weather electoral storms in Texas and Ohio , staying ahead in the all-important Delegate Count and electorally afloat (competitive) for the 16 remaining primaries, especially the Pennsylvania primary in April.

Analysis of Overall Votes in State Primaries

Before discussing Obama's voter blocs, however, we should comment on general features of the overall votes in selected states during the February and March primaries. TABLE I provides the results in selected February and March primaries.

Several attributes of the election data shown in TABLE I suggest that, given the upstart and neophyte status of the Obama candidacy vis-à-vis Hillary Clinton's powerful campaign machine (what the Wall Street Journal editorial – February 13th - described as “the most successful Democratic organization of the last generation”), the Obama campaign has demonstrated a comparatively strong electoral capability. For one thing, in the big-population state of California, where the Clinton campaign held what the pundits dubbed a “massive advantage” in regard to Latino voters, the Obama campaign's electoral efficacy held Clinton's victory margin to 11 percentage.

As shown in TABLE III below, in Texas, the Obama campaign mobilized a 35% Latino voter support which chipped-away at Clinton's presumed “Latino massive advantage,” resulting in a 63% Latino vote for Clinton and thus only a 2% victory margin in the Texas primary. When we recall that two months earlier, in January, the polls showed Clinton with a high double-digit advantage (20-plus percentage) over Obama, holding Clinton to just a 2% victory margin in the Texas primary was an enormous instance of the Obama campaign's electoral efficacy. How did the Obama campaign achieve this outcome? As shown in TABLE III, it did this by mobilizing 85% of the Black Texas vote and an incredible 44% of the White Texas vote. Skill at mobilizing what might be called a “voter-bloc counterweight” to Clinton's presumed “natural voter-bloc” (Latino voters in the case of Texas) has been demonstrated often by the Obama campaign organization.

Second, in key industrial states like New Jersey and Ohio, where the Clinton campaign also held what pundits dubbed a “massive advantage” in regard to working-class and lower middle-class White voters, the Obama campaign's electoral efficacy also held Clinton's victory margin to the low double-digit range - namely, a 10% victory margin in New Jersey, and a 12% victory margin in Ohio.

Again, in light of the Wall Street Journal's kind of David-Goliath comparison of the Obama campaign's origins versus the Clinton campaign's origins, the fact that the Obama campaign held Clinton's victory margin in New Jersey and Ohio to 10% and 14% was an important achievement. After all, a month-and-half before those primaries, polls gave Clinton a high double-digit advantage.

Third, another fascinating attribute of the election data shown in TABLE I deserves special mention, namely, that Obama racked up high double-digit range victory margins in five states, while Clinton had a high double-digit range victory margin in only two states. Thus, Obama's victory margin was 23% in Maryland, 27% in South Carolina, 20% in Vermont, 29% in Virginia, and 17% in Wisconsin, while Clinton's high victory margin was 14% in Ohio and 18% in Rhode Island. And as will be shown in TABLE V below, Obama's high double-digit range victory margin translated into a total vote that outdistanced Clinton's total vote by 600,000 - i.e., 13 million primary votes for Obama, 12.4 million for Clinton.

Key Role of Black Voters in Post-Wisconsin Obama Campaign

Fourth, special reference to the position of the Black vote in the election results shown in TABLE I is useful here. In the states of Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, and Wisconsin, where Obama gained high double-digit victory margins, the Black vote for Obama was in the 85%-plus range. The Obama campaign sustained the 85%-plus Black voter support in the Ohio primary - 89% to be precise. And Obama gained 85% of Black voters in Texas. This might be dubbed a “Black voter-bloc saturation” of the Obama campaign!

Furthermore, if the electoral mobilization efficacy of the Obama campaign had been notched-up to produce a 90% Black support on March 4th in the Texas primary, the Clinton small 2% victory margin would have been eliminated. And if the Obama campaign's electoral mobilization efficacy had been notched-up to produce a 95% Black support in Ohio, the Clinton 14% victory margin in Ohio would have been significantly reduced.

In short, I suggest that the lesson going-forward into the last round of primaries is patently clear for the Obama campaign. Namely, it has to seek a maximal Black voter support in upcoming state primaries, above all in the state of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, when we project our analysis forward to the upcoming Pennsylvania primary in April, the Obama campaign should reinvigorate its skill - already demonstrated in Texas - at mobilizing what I call a “counterweight voter-bloc dynamic”.

This should take place especially among Pennsylvania's Black voters vis-à-vis Hillary Clinton's “natural advantage” among Pennsylvania's working-class and lower middle-class White voters. It means generating a maximal voter turnout in an Obama-friendly category of voters so that this can facilitate a special “counterweight” electoral impact.

As it happened in the Texas primary, the Obama campaign fashioned a “counterweight voter-bloc dynamic” vis-à-vis Clinton's “natural advantage” among Latino voters by gaining 43% of White voters, thereby holding Clinton to only a 2% victory margin in Texas. Accordingly, this “counterweight voter-bloc dynamic” can be important in the forthcoming April Pennsylvania primary.

It can do this through a combination of maximal Black voter support and maximal upper middle-class White voter support. By the way, the voter-bloc of upper middle-class White voters among Democrats (dubbed “college graduates” in Exit Polls) favor Obama at 65% in a recent CBS News-New York Times National Poll (February 20-24), compared with 33% for Clinton. So upper middle-class White voters can help the Obama campaign fashion a “counterweight voter-bloc dynamic” vis-à-vis Hillary Clinton's “natural advantage” among Pennsylvania's working-class and lower middle-class White voters.

Pennsylvania's primary involves 158 Delegates, so this proposition regarding a “counterweight voter-bloc dynamic” applies as well to future primaries in states with sizable Delegates, such as North Carolina (115 Delegates), Indiana (72 Delegates) and Kentucky (51 Delegates. In these states, the Black voter-bloc can be a crucial “counterweight” to Clinton”s “natural advantage” among working-class and lower middle-class White voters, and upper middle-class White voters can reinforce the Black voter-bloc “counterweight dynamic” so crucial to the Obama campaign.

Important Change in Democratic Voter Blocs Toward Obama

When the 45-year old African-American member of the United States Senate named Barack Obama put his hat in the ring for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in early 2007, it was hard to imagine he would fashion a critical-mass support among White voters. Thanks to a CBS News-New York Times Poll of Democrat voter blocs (February 20-24, 2008), we are able to trace the surprising evolution of Democrat voter blocs' outlook toward Senator Barack Obama between December 2007 and late February 2008. Data shown in TABLE II provide selected results from this poll.

The foregoing data on Democratic primary voters' support-profile toward the two leading candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, demonstrate what I characterized in my third article on the Obama campaign for Black Commentator (Feb. 21, 2008) as “new electoral dynamics”. I elaborated my understanding of these “new electoral dynamics” in that article as follows: namely, solid evidence that White voters are, shall we say, “racially maturing” - leaving the old vicious cocoon of American racism to enter a “'new culturally-cosmopolitan American identity,” let's call it. Rather like a caterpillar that sheds its stifling cocoon to emerge into the butterfly's glorious freedom.

Insofar as the data shown in TABLE II do not relate to non-White Democratic voters and are thus restricted to White Democratic voters, there are many fascinating features of the evolution of Democratic voters’ support profile between December 2007 and February 2008.

First, note that White voters' attitudes toward the African-American candidate Barack Obama were at a very low favorable level in early December 2007. Whites in general supported Obama by a mere 20% in Dec. 2007.

Second, just three-months later in Feb. 2008, White voters supported Obama by 49% - a 29-point change. Third, White women Democratic voters supported Obama a percentage below the overall White support level of 20%, yet that low-level support reached 40% in Feb. 2008 - a 21-point change. Fourth, Whites who are “college graduates” - a prominent category in the upper middle-class ranks - were the strongest supporters of Obama by Feb. 2008. They had the highest rate of support-change, from 27% Obama-support level to a 65% Obama-support level - a 38-point change.

It is particularly noteworthy that at the time of the 22-state Super Tuesday primary on February 5th, White women Democratic voters had evolved from an ultra-low Obama-support level of 19% to a moderate Obama-support level of 40%, while also increasing their 48% Clinton-support level to a 51% Clinton-support level. This shift represented a 3-point change vis-a-vis Clinton but a sizable 29-point change by White women vis-à-vis Obama.

However, viewing White Democratic voters in general (as portrayed in TABLE II) it was above all the shifts in the Obama-support profile among voters in the categories of “Age 18-44,” “college graduates,” “liberals,” and “moderates” that propelled Barack Obama's candidacy from a marginal-status in early December 2007 to a competitive-status by February 2008. Thus:

• The shift among “Age 18-44 category” from 30% to 60% Obama-support level amounted to a 30-point change, the third highest shift.

• The shift among “moderates” from 27% to 59% Obama-support level amounted to a 32-point change, the second highest shift.

• The shift among “liberals” from 27% to 53% Obama-support level amounted to a 26-point change, the fourth highest shift.

• And the shift among “college graduates” from a 27% to 65% Obama-support level amounted to a 38-point change, far and away the highest change among White Democratic voters in regard to their evolving acceptability of African-American candidate Barack Obama.

It is clear, then, that without the evolution of White Democratic voters from a very low Obama-support profile in December 2007 to a high median-level Obama-support profile in February 2008, the Obama campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination would not be where it stands in the second week of March 2008. First, the Obama campaign is electorally competitive with the Clinton campaign organization (a Clinton Machine that the Wall Street Journal editorial described as “the most successful Democratic organization of the last generation”). And second, the Obama campaign is solidly ahead in the all-important primary election results category of Delegate Count.

While losing the total vote count in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, Obama nevertheless gained 183 Delegates to 187 Delegates for Clinton. This outcome in Delegates stems from the proportional representation rules governing the delegate-allocation in Democratic Party primaries - a progressive Democratic Convention change that Jesse Jackson's reform activism at Conventions between 1972 and 1980 helped create. Thus, according to USA Today (March 6, 2008), Obama has 1,567 Delegates, to 1,462 Delegates for Clinton - a 105 Obama lead in Delegates. As I will discuss in the concluding section of this article, the consensus seems to be that when the 12 remaining primaries following the March 4 primaries have concluded in early June, neither Clinton nor Obama will amass the 2,025 delegates (out of a total 4,048 delegates) required for the nomination. Accordingly, the special group of candidates dubbed “super-delegates” (795) will play a decisive role at the Democratic Party Convention in August in Denver, Colorado.

Obama Campaign's Strengths After Ohio & Texas Primaries

We can derive some understanding of the meaning of Hillary Clinton's victory in the March 4th Ohio and Texas primaries from a variety of Exit Poll data and from election results. I have already noted that Clinton's victory margin in Texas was a low 2%. This suggests to me that although Clinton's overall three-state victory represented “new momentum” for her campaign, it does not substantively weaken the Obama campaign's overall position. Accordingly, I concur with the observation by the CBS News commentator, Dean Reynolds, (March 5) that Clinton's three-state primary victory just means that “new wind is blowing in the direction of Hillary Clinton.” The Obama campaign still possesses important strong attributes.

A more detailed analysis of the overall meaning of what full headlines in the Boston Globe (March 5, 2008) called a “Resurgent Clinton,” can be derived from data shown in TABLE III and in TABLE IV. Data in TABLE III provide selected demographic attributes of Democratic voters in the Ohio and Texas primaries. I think some interesting analytical results flow from reflections on election data in TABLE III with a comparative eye to data in TABLE II on Democratic White voters' support profile toward Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama between December 2007 and February 2008.

Although the Clinton victory in Ohio and Texas enabled the Clinton campaign to assume a “resurgent posture” and the aura of a “new momentum,” the data shown in TABLE III and in TABLE IV point to a continual and vibrant competitive capacity on the part of the Obama campaign. First, it was somewhat surprising to me that in the strong White-majority states of Ohio and Texas, the African-American candidate Barack Obama held on to almost two-fifth of White voters in Ohio (38% to be precise) and a solid two-fifth (44%) in Texas. This can be understood as evidence of an expanding “multicultural-mindset” among the average White American, and this development shows the electoral efficacy of the Obama campaign.

Second, when we interface this evidence of an expanding “multicultural-mindset” among White citizens in states like Ohio and Texas with nationwide poll data shown in TABLE IV regarding U.S. voters' views of candidates' governance ability, there are further signs of changing positive attitudes among White citizens that can assist the electoral efficacy of the Obama campaign. For instance, in regard to “Governance Issues” affecting domestic American affairs, the 1,115 U.S. voters surveyed in February (the vast majority being White) expressed “more confidence” in Barack Obama than in Hillary Clinton. Thus regarding “Able to Unite the Country,” 67% confidence in Obama, 34% confidence in Clinton. And regarding “Able to Make Right Decisions,” 66% confidence in Obama, 56% confidence in Clinton.

Similarly, in regard to “Governance Issues” affecting international affairs, the 1,115 U.S. voters surveyed expressed “more confidence” in Obama than in Clinton. Regarding “Make Right Decisions on Iraq War,” 57% confidence in Obama, 50% confidence in Clinton; “Improve Relations with Other Countries,” 77% confidence in Obama, 64% Clinton; “Deal Wisely with International Crisis,” 47% confidence in Obama, 39% Clinton; and the issue of “Effective Commander In Chief of Armed Forces,” 69% confidence in Obama, 54% Clinton.

In short, the data in TABLE IV regarding U.S. voters' (and presumably White citizens) relatively high confidence-level toward to an African-American exercising presidential powers in the White House emits a sense that the Obama candidacy has contained (fenced-in so to speak) important spheres of White citizens' historic parochial-racist predilections toward African-American leadership personalities. Note that Senator Barack Obama has a high double-digit edge over Senator Hillary Clinton on Governance Issue “Able To Unite the Country” - 67% Obama, 34% Clinton. He has a solid double-digit edge on Governance Issue “Able to Make Right Decisions” - 66% Obama, 56% Clinton, a solid double-digit edge on Governance Issue “Improve U.S. Relations with Other Countries” - 77% Obama, 64% Clinton. And, finally, he has a solid double-digit edge on the Governance Issue “Can Be Effective Commander In Chief of Armed Forces” - 69% Obama, 54% Clinton.

The “Governance Issue” & Declining Racism in Elections

That here in the early 21st century the Governance Issue of “Effective Commander In Chief of Armed Forces” has Senator Obama ahead of Senator Clinton 69% to 54% strikes me as quite fascinating. Why? Because White American citizens' historic parochial-racist predilections toward African-Americans once kept African-Americans away from top decision-making roles in our country's armed forces, kept them out-of-bounds - leadership roles to African-Americans - for nearly a century after the Civil War!

Remember that the great NAACP activist W.E.B. DuBois led a March-on-Washington to pressure the Woodrow Wilson administration to let Black soldiers simply fight in World War I. Remember that it took the monstrous World War II to finally get African-Americans into leadership-level battlefield roles regarding Black troops (e.g., the brilliant and heroic Tuskegee Air Pilots). Remember that when the commander of the Tuskegee-trained all-Black U.S. Air Force 99th Pursuit Squadron - General Benjamin O. Davis - was an Army Cadet at West Point in the 1930s, the New York Times obituary on General Davis (July 7, 2007) noted the vicious assaults on his Black identity: “No one would room with Cadet Davis and no one would speak to him outside the line of duty.” Remember, remember....

And so it was in our post-Vietnam War era that democratic sanity finally reigns in matters of armed forces governance, enabling even under a Republican administration (President George Bush I) the appointment of an African-American as National Security Adviser and as Head General of Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff - namely, General Colin Powell. Thus by February 2008 when the poll shown in TABLE IV was taken, many White citizens' longstanding parochial racist predilections had withered, so that nearly 70% reported in a nationwide poll that they more strongly favored Senator Obama as “Commander in Chief of Armed Forces” than Senator Hillary Clinton.

Now let me take this discussion of the “Governance Issue” in the current Democratic primaries one step further by intertwining it with a section of the data shown in TABLE III on election results in Ohio and Texas, namely, the “Age Group” data. These data show that in both the Ohio and Texas primaries, voters in the 18-29 age bracket supported Obama at 60% in Ohio and 67% in Texas, and voters in the 30-44 age bracket supported Obama at 57% in Ohio and 54% in Texas.

Insofar as White citizens constituted the majority among voters in the above age brackets in Ohio and Texas, we can assume therefore that the Obama campaign recognizes the important contribution of White voters in their late teens-twenties-thirties to the success-so-far and the-eventual-success of the Obama campaign's quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. I, therefore, offer an electoral-logistic suggestion to the Obama campaign mechanism.

My suggestion is that if the Obama campaign concentrates a maximal-level of voter-mobilization resources on White voters in their late teens-twenties-thirties, the high Obama-support level recorded in TABLE III for the Ohio and Texas primaries can be sustained and even expanded in future important primaries (10 of them), such as Pennsylvania (April 22), Indiana (May 6), North Carolina (May 6), West Virginia (May 13), and Kentucky (May 20).

I also have a related electoral-logistic suggestion. Namely, that the Obama campaign concentrate a maximal-level of voter-mobilization resources on expanding the very high Obama-support level registered by the Black voter-bloc in both the Ohio and Texas primaries - an 89% Black support for Obama in Ohio, and 85% in Texas.

Combining a maximal-level of voter-mobilization resources effectively among the Black voter-bloc and among White voters in the late teens-twenties-thirties-bloc, can help greatly to ensure the Obama campaign's quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. Let's hope there is an awareness of this at the top-level ranks of the Obama campaign, as that campaign prepares for the upcoming 158-Delegate rich Pennsylvania primary in April.

Wither the Democratic Nomination Contest?

In a New York Times' article on the Wednesday after the March 4th Ohio-Texas-Rhode Island-Vermont primaries, there appeared the following summary of the demographic aspects of Texas voters favoring either Clinton or Obama:

Mrs. Clinton maintained an edge over Mr. Obama among women, whites, Hispanics, older voters and those with less education. Mr. Obama...continued to edge out Mrs. Clinton among [white] men, blacks, younger voters and those with more education, according to an exit poll conducted statewide by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool.

My analytical understanding of the Obama campaign thus far (second week of March) is that as long as the Obama campaign structures and calibrates its electoral-logistics so as to sustain its edge among the voter-blocs that enabled Obama to come within 2-percentage points of beating Hillary Clinton in Texas (50% Clinton, 48% Obama), victory will be Obama's in the next major primary in Pennsylvania. An idea of the potential electoral importance in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary of the pro-Obama voter-blocs of White men, Blacks, younger voters and college-educated voters, can be gained from Pennsylvania demographic data.

First, on a national level a CBS News/New York Times poll (February 2008) found that in general 61% White men voters support Obama compared to 33% support for Clinton. But when the voter-bloc category of “college-educated” White men is considered, their pro-Obama support level is much higher. Thus insofar as Pennsylvania citizens with “Bachelor's degree or higher” is 25.4% of voters, the Obama campaign is well situated to edge Clinton among this voter-bloc.

Second, African-Americans constitute a 10.4% voter-bloc in Pennsylvania. Thus, in light of the Exit Polls regarding a massively high pro-Obama support pattern among Black voters in major primaries thus far (South Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, Missouri, Ohio, etc.), the Obama campaign is also well situated to edge Clinton among the Black voter-bloc in Pennsylvania. (Demographic data on Pennsylvania voter-blocs are in the Wall Street Journal, March 6, 2008).

Accordingly, inasmuch as it is reasonable to expect the Obama campaign to do as well in the Pennsylvania primary in April as it did in the Texas primary by staying within several percentage points of Clinton, then Obama will strengthen his present lead in the Delegate Count. It is Obama's present lead of 111 in the Delegate Count which leading television-news commentators on the primaries (Stephanopolus, Russert, Shafer, Lehrer, etc.) say will guarantee that the presidential nomination decision for the Democrats will have to await its August Convention in Denver.

Thus my analysis of the present status of the Obama campaign here in the second week of March is that: One, Senator Obama's clear lead in the core measures of primary contests overwhelmingly favors him to gain the Democratic presidential nomination. And two, as shown in TABLE VI Senator Obama, in nationwide polls matching Clinton and Obama against the Republican nominee John McCain, prevails over McCain by 12-percentage points, which is twice the 6-percentage points by which Senator Clinton prevails over McCain.

Moreover, as shown in TABLE V, Senator Barack Obama leads Senator Hillary Clinton in three key status-measures of the results of Democratic primaries thus far. Obama has won 28 states to Clinton's 15. Obama has gained 13.4 million votes from Democratic Party voters, compared with 12.7million votes for Clinton. And in the ultimate and decisive Delegate Count status-measure, Obama has amassed 1,579 to Clinton's 1,468 - a 111 advantage in the Delegate Count. Of course, the road-from-primary-rendered Delegate Count is not tantamount to the final nomination decision at the August Democratic Convention. Instead, that decision rests with the special delegate category of “super-delegates,” some 795 of them who – by official rules of the Democratic Party - have the authority and the right to cast their support for the nomination to which ever candidate - Cli nton or Obama - they see fit.

Be that as it may, a crucial key status-measure of Democratic primaries' results between Clinton and Obama deserves special attention. Namely, the total votes received by each candidate, and using just this measure alone Barack Obama continues to be well ahead of Hillary Clinton by 700,000 primary votes cast by Democratic voters. Furthermore, numerous media commentators have identified the special organizational skills and political elan of the Obama campaign as largely responsible for record-breaking voter turnout in the 2008 Democratic primaries, while the Clinton campaign has received very little credit for contributing to this trend. For instance, in regard to the Texas primary, the USA Today (March 6, 2008) reported: Texas election officials reported that more than 4.2 million votes were cast in Tuesday's primaries - meaning 33% of eligible voters in the state took part. The state's previous turnout record in a primary election was 2.7 million, set in 1988.

We should also note that the extraordinary impact of the Obama campaign in regard to doubling and sometimes tripling voter turnout in the 2008 Democratic primaries, seems to have had what might be called a “spill-over effect” on the important special congressional election that took place on March 8 in the 14th Congressional District in Illinois. That seat was held by the former Republican Representative Dennis Hastert, who retired in November after a long reign as Speaker of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, so this amounts to a major congressional election defeat for Republicans.

A political neophyte, Bill Foster - a scientist by profession - ran as the Democratic candidate and defeated a wealthy dairy magnate, Jim Oberweis, the Republican candidate. The quite significant “spill-over effect” of the Obama campaign on Bill Foster's victory was noted in a report in the Wall Street Journal (March 10, 2008): Sen. Obama endorsed Mr. Foster, cut a television ad and used his presidential campaign's resources to conduct 13,000 phone-bank calls and send 150 volunteers into the field on his behalf. ...For his part, Mr. Foster said he believes Sen. Obama played a key role in his victory. “We were honored by the endorsement and the effort Sen. Barack Obama made on our behalf.”

In short, there is more than ample evidence that the Obama campaign has demonstrated, during the 2008 Democratic primaries (with only 10 primaries remaining), what might be called a “superior aggregate Democratic Party electoral capability,” as compared with the Clinton campaign. When combined with Obama's lead in the Delegate Count category and total primary votes-cast category, this “spill-over effect” political dynamic clearly militates in favor of Barack Obama's selection as the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party at its August Convention in Denver.

It should be noted however that as of the second week of March, the cynical personalities who direct the Clinton campaign have decided to match the cynical stealth and dirty-tricks maneuvers of Republican Party electoral strategists like the late Lee Atwater (who guided campaigns for Nixon and George Bush I) and Karl Rove (President Bush II's strategist). In an appearance on the CBS 60 Minutes the Sunday before the Ohio-Texas primaries, the Clinton campaign played one of its dirty-tricks hands. Here's how the African-American columnist for the New York Times, Bob Herbert, reported this instance: There was Mrs. Clinton on 60 Minutes, being interviewed by Steve Kroft. He had shown a clip on the program of a voter in Ohio who said that he'd heard that Senator Obama didn't know the national anthem, 'wouldn't use the Holy Bible', and was a Muslim.

Mr. Kroft asked Senator Clinton is she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: 'No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know. As far as I know. If she had been asked if she thought President Bush was a Muslim, would her response have included the caveat 'as far as I know'? What about Senator McCain? Why, then, with Senator Obama? (New York Times, March 8, 2008) This instance of verbal dirty-tricks by the Clinton campaign was considered equally foul by another New York Time's columnist, Nicholas Kristof, who in his column the day after Bob Herbert's column (March 9) also chastized Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain should take the initiative and denounce the fear-mongering about Mr. Obama as hate speech. The wink-wink references to 'Barack Hussein Obama' and lies about his going to a madrassa are the religious equivalent of racial slurs, and Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton should denounce them in the strongest terms. This is their chance to show leadership. When Mrs. Clinton was asked in a television interview a week ago whether Mr. Obama is a Muslim, she denied it firmly - but then added, most unfortunately, 'as far as I know'.

This instance of sleazy maneuvers by the Clinton campaign is, I dare say, just the tip-of-the-Clinton Machine-iceberg, so to speak. At the systemic or institutional level in regard to the Democratic Party's nomination decision making, the Clinton campaign has shamelessly reneged on its agreement (agreed to also by John Edwards and Barack Obama) to a Democratic National Committee rule that primaries in Florida and Michigan would be illegal because they were held on dates rejected by the National Committee. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton put her name into play in both of those primaries and campaigned in Florida, thereby brazenly violating official Democratic Party National Committee rules. And by mid-February, when the Obama campaign had amassed a clear lead in “states won,” “total primary votes,” and “Delegate Count,” Hillary Clinton and her campaign spokespersons shamelessly claimed that Florida and Michigan delegates belonged to her since she “won” those primaries, primaries in which neither John Edwards nor Barack Obama participated. It takes a lot of chutzpah, cynicism, amorality, and power-mania mindset to produce this kind of political behavior...

It seems that in light of the sleazy, amoral political culture practiced by Hillary Clinton's campaign - and the broader Clinton Machine of which it is an integral part - a fierce political battle looms over the “delegates issue” on-the-road to the August Democratic Nomination Convention. If so, one thing should be made unmistakably clear among the large array of African-American groups associated with the electoral and political processes in the Democratic Party, African-American groups that have sustained the electoral viability of the Democratic Party for the past 40 years. Namely, that Democratic Party-linked African-American electoral and political groups will battle-to-the-death the sleazy and amoral Clinton campaign forces in order to prevent a Hillary Clinton theft of the Democratic nomination from Barack Obama. And, by extension, in order to protect “Black people's honor,” if you will - The honor of our centuries-oppressed slavery ancestors here on American soil, and later our equal rights-denied ancestors, following the victory for Black people's freedom in the Civil War - a victory to which over one-half million African-American citizens in the Union Army (including my own ancestors) contributed.

Concluding Note

During the first week of March, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, announced. “We are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.” (USA Today March 6, 2008) Operationally however, it remains to be seen what the Democratic National Committee means by this pronouncement. Meanwhile, at least two major developments have ensued around the two-tier delegate crisis - that is, the “general delegates crisis” of which the matter of the Florida and Michigan illegitimate primaries are part, and the “super-delegates crisis”.

One development relates to proposals for holding alternative primaries in the states of Florida and Michigan so as to avoid a de facto disinfranchisement of Democratic voters in those states. The second development relates to the position of about one-fifth of the “super-delegates” who are key African-American political figures.

Regarding Black “super-delegates,” there has been some divisiveness owing to the commitment of some Black “super-delegates” to Senator Clinton (e.g., Representative Charles Rangel (NY), Representative Maxine Waters (CA)) and some to Senator Obama. Some measure of clarification as to the future outcome of the divisiveness among Black “super-delegates” appeared on February 27th, when the highly influential African-American civil rights leadership figure and a longstanding member of the House of Representatives - John Lewis of Georgia - announced that he was recinding his earlier commitment as a “super-delegate” to Hillary Clinton and making his commitment to Senator Obama. Here's how Congressman Lewis formulated his stunning commitment to Senator Obama:

“I think the candidacy of Senator Obama represents the beginning of a new movement in American political history that began in the hearts and minds of the people of this nation. And I want to be on the side of the people.

Ripple effects from Representative John Lewis' decision were immediate, such as the case of “super-delegate” Mayor Rhine McLin in Dayton, Ohio. A “super-delegate” by virtue of her mayoral status and her vice chair of the Ohio Democratic Party, Mayor McLin announced for Obama in an interview on CNN after the Ohio primary. “...By Dayton and Montgomery County going with Obama, that's who I'm going to pledge my (vote) to. ...These are the people that voted me in office. These are the people that I work with, and I live here in this town. So, therefore, it's very important that I represent them. Not only daily, but even nationally with the Democratic Party here. And that's why I thought it was very important to wait and let them tell me what they wanted me to do.” (USA Today, March 6, 2008).

My hope is that the vast majority of the Democratic Party's African-American “super-delegates” take their lead from Representative John Lewis and Dayton Mayor Rhine McLin when (or perhaps before) they arrive at the Democratic Party Convention in Denver in August. Why is this my hope? Because I believe the election of Barack Obama will benefit the future advancement of the life chances of 25% of African-Americans now struggling in poverty (amounting to 9.1 million Black households!) and another 15% who are working-poor.

Furthermore, I equally believe that Barack Obama's election will help free our American democracy generally from the clutches of a Gilded Age-type corporatist-dominated plutocracy that now reigns in our country. And inasmuch as today's American plutocracy is, in turn, facilitated and reinforced by a cynical, corrupt, and reactionary Republican Party political class at both state and federal levels, Barack Obama's election offers America's democratic forces a new and viable opportunity to reverse some 27 years of Republican Party-facilitated plutocratic power-class stifling of equalitarian socio-economic progress generally in American life.

I think it is precisely this facet of a possible Democratic Party presidency under Barack Obama that Representative John Lewis had in mind on February 27th when he announced  his “super-delegate-status” commitment to Senator Obama. Again, as John Lewis put it:

“I think the candidacy of Senator Obama represents the beginning of a new movement in American political history that began in the hearts and minds of the people of this nation. And I want to be on the side of the people.”

Finally, I recently defended the special meaning associated with achieving the election of Barack Obama in November in a letter-to-editor of the New York Times which, like many such letters I've written over nearly a half-century, didn't get published. In the New York Times March 3, 2008, the presumably progressive columnist Paul Krugman published a quite nasty attack on Senator Obama and the Obama campaign generally. Krugman's column got-my-dander-up, so speak, so I replied to it. My letter-to-editor of the Times read as follows:

Editor
The New York Times

Sir:

Paul Krugman's column claims that “a funny thing happened on the way to the 2008 election” - namely, the present leading position of Senator Obama in the Democratic nomination contest. In his strident put-down demeanor toward Obama and his campaign, Krugman employs bizarre and dishonest claims. To equate Obama's support for universal health care with Republican and “conservative talking points on the crucial issue of health care” is both bizarre and dishonest, since Republican leaders and conservatives generally oppose any kind of universal health care. Bizzare and dishonest, too, is Krugman's claim that Obama's supporters believe his keen and broad appeal among Democrats (his “personal charisma” as Krugman puts it) “will yield an overwhelming electoral victory” or “a landslide victory”. Krugman has no poll data to back his description of Obama's supporters, a description implying that they entertain a political fantasy. The reality is that in general Obama supporters have fashioned viable hands-on voter mobilization thrusts broadly in 11-straight Democratic primaries that Obama won, something far from “political fantasy”. Such Obama supporters also recognize that a victory in November will be a close one.

Finally, Krugman's claim that “some progressives are appalled by the direction their party seems to have taken...getting an oratorically upgraded version of Michael Bloomberg...” is a nasty disingenuous characterization of Obama's campaign, and it's wrong because the policy differences between Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Obama are numerous. Moreover, Krugman has in mind his own parochial circle of “progressives” since the circle of “African-American progressives” with which I identify, as well as the network of “interracial progressives” with which I also identify, both view an Obama presidency as one capable of producing significant democratic enhancements in the character and substance of life chances for the average citizen in our wealth-oligarchic, civically callous, and politically decrepit American democracy.

Sincerely,

Martin Kilson
Professor of Government Emeritus
Harvard University
(March 3, 2008)

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member Martin Kilson, PhD hails from an African Methodist background and clergy: From a great-great grandfather who founded an African Methodist Episcopal church in Maryland in the 1840s; from a great-grandfather AME clergyman; from a Civil War veteran great-grandfather who founded an African Union Methodist Protestant church in Pennsylvania in 1885; and from an African Methodist clergyman father who pastored in an Eastern Pennsylvania mill town - Ambler, PA. He attended Lincoln University (PA), 1949-1953, and Harvard graduate school. Appointed in 1962 as the first African American to teach in Harvard College, in 1969 he was the first African American tenured at Harvard. He retired in 2003 as a Frank G. Thomson Professor of Government, Emeritus. His publications include: Political Change in a West African State: A Study of the Modernization Process in Sierra Leone (Harvard University Press, 1966); Key Issues in the Afro-American Experience (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970); New States in the Modern World (Center for International Affairs) (Harvard University Press, 1975); The African Diaspora: Interpretive Essays (Harvard University Press, 1976); The Making of Black Intellectuals: Studies on the African American Intelligentsia (Forthcoming. University of Missouri Press); and The Transformation of the African American Intelligentsia, 1900-2008 (Forthcoming). Click here to contact Dr. Kilson.

Your comments are always welcome.