All political speeches have multiple audiences. The least important is the audience listening in person. That, of course, was the case with Barack Obama’s “race” speech. But, it is false conceit for either the media or the general public to assume that they were the primary audience.
The most important audience was a few hundred people critical to the future of the Obama campaign.
From the beginning the Obama campaign has been focused on the delegate count. He has followed a carefully orchestrated strategy to maximize the number of delegates under the Democrat party’s obscure delegate-selection rules. By staying competitive in large states and winning small states, caucus states and solidly “red” states, he has methodically built a slight plurality of delegates.
Had the party followed winner-take-all rules, the race would almost certainly be over and Hillary Clinton would almost certainly be the nominee. But, Obama’s shrewd strategy has enabled him to overtake Clinton and take a slight lead in delegates.
Obama knows that he will probably lose Pennsylvania, but because of the bizarre delegate distribution rules, he’ll remain slightly ahead in delegates. The nomination will be decided by the super delegates.
That was the audience that Obama had to appeal to with his speech.
While editorial writers and columnists have applauded the rhetorical beauty of the speech, on closer examination, the weaknesses, omissions and downright banality of the reasoning has started to show through and percolate through the Internet and the media.
But, in the end, that doesn’t matter. Obama’s speech really didn’t have to convince middle-of-the-road Americans who recoil at his minister’s fiery venom. Instead, what it had to do was reassure a far more receptive audience – the super delegates.
If Obama’s speech seemed designed to appeal to baby-boomer liberals anxious to demonstrate their open-mindedness toward a radical “liberation theology” minister and his church, it is because it is liberal baby-boomer super-delegates anxious to demonstrate that they are open-minded, that he must depend on for the nomination.
The super-delegates are cautious about being seen as “dream killers.” Anyone who has been following their public comments can sense that Hilary Clinton has a much steeper hill to climb. The Clintons know it. Their frustration and anger – as well as the frustration and anger of their loyal supporters – is obvious and frankly, understandable.
Both sides are arguing endlessly about which would be more electable come November, but the truth is, it is a tossup and likely to remain so. Regardless of who is matched up against John McCain, it is right now a 50/50 race.
Neither candidate can lay legitimate claim to the other’s base. While each candidate claims to be able to consolidate the party, the polling results we are seeing suggest that it is unlikely that there will be any significant movement of the other candidate’s base toward the ultimate nominee.
For the super delegates, the strategic choice comes down to a coin toss.
To further complicate things, there is no difference in the candidates’ policy positions. Both have tacked hard to the left during the primary and will probably stay there, because that is where they are most comfortable.
But, that is okay, because the super delegates would love, more than anything else, to have a true liberal win the presidency.
Obama needed to give the super delegates another reason to pick him. In short, he needed an edge over Clinton.
In his speech, Obama took perfect aim at the greatest sensibilities of the super delegates. “Nominate me,” Obama was saying, “and you can feel good about yourselves.”
“On the other hand, deny me the nomination and you will have to live with the knowledge that you passed up an historic opportunity to right a wrong that has plagued our nation for nearly two and a half centuries.”
The super delegates are trapped in a dilemma that they would all love to escape from, but cannot.
In the end, they know that it will never be possible to say with certainty which of the candidates is the better choice. There are no parallel universes here. One candidate will be the nominee and one won’t. Either the Democrat nominee will win and they will be vindicated or the Democrat will lose and they will have to live with the criticism and disappointment.
Under these circumstances, the candidate who offers them the best deal wins. Obama’s bargain is simple. By defining his candidacy as the embodiment of a higher purpose, Obama is telling the super delegates that even in loss, they can take comfort in knowing that it is only because the rest of the country is not yet as fully evolved as they are.
For liberals, who love nothing better than feeling superior to the common masses, it is an offer that they will find hard to resist.
