The Pretentious Claim of Hillary Clinton in the First Post-Modern Campaign

David Oatney ponders Hillary Clinton’s claim to lead the popular vote in the Democratic race for the White House. David ponders what a potential Obama-Hillary race in Michigan would have looked liked:

The real question mark is Michigan. Obama would have carried Detroit by a huge margin, and perhaps Lansing as well, but Clinton likely would have carried everything else. Would “everything else” have been enough for Clinton to win Michigan, and even if she did, would her net delegates give her a significant lead over Obama (the margin in Michigan likely being very close)? These are questions that will never be answered, but are reasonable to ask when it is considered that if Florida and Michigan had legitimate primaries where the delegates were counted, the outcome of the Democrats’ nominating process might be very different.

I actually doubt the results would be different. The low turnout Michigan Primary gave Hillary Clinton 55.2% of the vote with many Black voters, particularly in Detroit, staying home and a poll taken in April showed Obama leading with a large swath of undecided voters.

Of course, the only way Mrs. Clinton leads is that low turnout primary in Michigan, which gave her 328,000 votes to Barack Obama’s 0 votes. With that Mrs. Clinton “leads” with a narrow total of 29, 967 votes.

The serious suggestion of some Hillary Clinton supporters that Michigan be counted reminds of an opening scene from Little Big League. In a little league game, due to a base-running blunder, all three runners ended up on third base. The coach of the team at bat made his argument to the Umpire, “They’re all safe.” Not likely.

The Obama-Clinton campaign has been a study of post-modernism. Rules laid out by the Democratic Party and agreed to by all 50 states are not viewed as absolute standards, but as easily broken. The rules that a clear majority of the alloted delegates will decide the nomination has been challenged with suggestions for alternate methods of deciding:

• Who won a majority of the popular vote?
• Who won the most electorally important states?
• Who won primaries that were held illegally?

The Clinton-Obama campaign has illustrated our post-modern folly and our rejection of absolute truth. If this were a baseball game, Hillary Clinton might well argue that she got more hits or more timely hits than Barack Obama despite the “Run” total showing up on the board. Imagine a World Series, where the two teams and their fans argued the Umpires should change the rules in the middle of the game?

It is utterly absurd, but it is only a sign of our times. Everything that’s been complained about: Caucuses, Super Delegates, Open Primaries: It was all around before. Barack Obama, for better or worse, has played by the rules laid down and, barring a collapse of historic proportions, he will win the game. (As of this writing, Senator Obama is a mere 112 delegates away from clinching his party’s nomination.) Whether Clinton supporters accept that or not is up to them, but as long as the game ends according to the rules, the result should be accepted.