Harold Ford, Jr.'s Disingenuousness & Other Super Tuesday Topics

First, the ironic topic.

Only a few weeks ago, after the Republican Michigan primary, Democratic pundits chortled that the GOP couldn't produce a winner, and was hopelessly fractured. At that point, Hickabee, Romney and McCain had each won one primary/caucus.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Hillary and Obama are locked in a dead heat, and are expected to remain so until their convention. Thanks to Robert Novak's superb reporting on Fox News the other day, it is clear why. Long ago, in the McGovern era of the party, the Democrats became embarrassed by 'winner take all' primaries, and eliminated them. So proportional are they, Novak explained, that it takes a win of over 60% for a candidate to be awarded more than only half of the delegates in a two-person contest.

Thanks to this typically-populist move, the Democrats have assured that Obama can't get swept out of the race by one or two large-state wins by Hillary.

As Novak put it, by now, Hillary's campaign had planned to announce their victory, and begin Republican-bashing in full force.

Instead, they are in the fight of their lives.

The way I figure it, if she muscles the so-called super delegates to vote for her, Obama and his black/young following will feel they were jobbed. Many of these newly-registered voters could well sit home, rather than vote for the Evil Queen.

Further, if she wins, and Obama believes she will lose the general election, he will want to protect his newly-won base. If so, will he whole-heartedly embrace Hillary and support her? Only to have the Kos and his newfound supporters desert him for being so, well, predictable and conventional?

It's not a pretty picture the Democrats have facing them, no matter who wins.

Meanwhile, Fox News hired Harold Ford, Jr., late a Tennessee Democrat Representative, failed Senatorial candidate, and current chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, Bubba's old outfit.

As a paid commentator, Ford was opining on the Hillary-Obama battle last night with Chris Wallace.

Every time Wallace tried to engage Ford on the importance of the black vote to Obama throughout the south, Ford kept alleging, to paraphrase him,

'...remember, Obama won in Iowa. And Iowa doesn't have many african americans. So race didn't matter.'

Nice try, Harold. But Iowa is uber-liberal to begin with. They'd be the most likely to embrace a neophyte black candidate. Especially one from literally next door- Illinois. And, Obama employed a tactic of asking college supporters to flood into Iowa at every opportunity, including to vote. Iowa may not be a state with a large black population, but that doesn't mean the black vote isn't important to Obama.

And, by the way, Ford said this, smiling slyly, trying to appear uncommited. But he's clearly backing Obama, based upon his continuing attempt to deflect the race issue and implicitly campaign for Obama's electability.

Then Wallace asked Ford if Obama's strong showing in red states was immaterial, because those would go Republican anyway. Again, Ford danced quickly, alleging, totally illogically, to paraphrase,

'I don't think so, Chris. The turnout on the Democratic side was high, so I think he'll do well in those states in a general election.'

Again, a non sequitor. The Democratic turnout has no bearing on whether a state's electorate, in general, will suddenly switch to blue from red.

With logic and reasoning like this, maybe it's easier to understand why Ford lost his Senate campaign.

Meanwhile, it borders on hysterical to watch the Democratic pundits recoil in horror, as the condition they so joyously celebrated among their Republican foes, a deadlock, has now been visited upon them until their convention.