Endgame?

On Friday, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy of The New York Times reported that Cong. John Lewis (D-GA) had said that he was going to cast his vote as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention for Barack Obama. That made a lot of people sit up and take notice because Rep. Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement who suffered grievous injuries in the 1965 march on Selma, Alabama, had endorsed Hillary Clinton early in the presidential race.

After the article appeared, the Congressman's office issued a confusing statement appearing to cast doubt on some of it, but the important part is what the statement did not say: The Congressman has not denied that he intends to vote for Obama at the convention.

John Lewis is a highly-respected Congressman, a leader of the Black Caucus, and one of the most prominent black figures on the political scene. His announcement will give cover, if any is needed, to many black officials who backed Hillary Clinton at a time when no one thought Barack Obama had a chance, and are now facing pressure from the fact that 80-90 percent of black voters are backing the Senator from Illinois.

But Lewis' statement is even more important. He gives powerful weight to those who say that the superdelegates need to go along with the voices of the voters, raised in caucuses and primaries across the nation. In other words, that the superdelegates need to rally around the candidate with the most elected delegates to the convention.

Most sources agree that it is very unlikely that Clinton will have as many elected delegates as Obama. She is presently about 100 behind; that margin is likely to increase on Tuesday, when Wisconsin holds its primary and Hawaiians go to caucuses. (If Obama wins Wisconsin by double digits, the Clinton campaign will be on life support.)

Clinton seems to have all but conceded that she will not have the most elected delegates at the convention: Today, CBS reported that the campaign said that she expects to win with the delegates from Michigan and Florida. The problem--as you have no doubt recognized--is that the party has ruled that those delegates will have no votes, because their states broke party rules by holding primaries in January. The Clinton people have been saying for some weeks that they want the delegates seated. And that may happen--but only if Obama would win nonetheless or after a brutal, party-splitting fight at the convention.

The Clinton attempt to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations is both a sign of desperation and another example of the win-at-all-costs (or "it's-all-about-me") style that has alienated many thousands of Democrats. You could make an argument that the Florida delegates should be seated--a whole lot of Florida Democrats went out to vote, and they had a choice between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. And none of the candidates campaigned actively in the state. That, however, was a distinct advantage for Clinton; in every state, the numbers for her and Obama have narrowed--at least until they have widened for him--as the primaries or caucuses approached. Why not? Her name-recognition dwarfed his until recently.

But how do you seat Florida without seating Michigan? Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot in the Wolverine State. Clinton ran against "uncommitted." (She still lost Detroit.) Arguing for seating the Michiganders is merely an attempt to save Clinton's ambition.

So, we're in or very close to the endgame--at or near the point where the nomination is Obama's to lose, where only a major gaffe that turns off voters in the three biggest states remaining (Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania) in massive numbers, and justifies most of the uncommitted superdelegates in turning from him, will deprive him of the crown.

(Of course, every other prediction this year has proved wrong. Why not this one?)