As Barack Obama builds momentum in post-Super Tuesday states, it is important to remember that the sporting event most analogous to what we are witnessing is not a horse race. Think rather of a fifteen- round boxing match. The fact that one fighter may be more bloodied at the end may not matter if he (or she) is still standing and has the same or more points over fifteen rounds.

Horse race enthusiasts are now saying that Hillary Clinton must “decisively” capture Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to claim the nomination. Why? No one doubts that if she fails to win a majority of the votes in both Texas and Ohio on March 4, her chances of winning the nomination outright are negligible. However, a week ago (with Hillary leading slightly in the delegate count), the commentators told us it was a draw. Now, with Obama having seized the momentum (and leading slightly in the delegate count) the commentators would have it that it is incumbent on Hillary not simply to sustain the stalemate, but to win decisively in all three of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, as if under any other circumstances Obama is entitled to be the nominee. Couldn’t a less decisive result simply show us that it’s still a draw, with neither candidate bearing the onus of being the diehard?

A Hillary victory in Texas, by whatever margin, and a close finish, whoever wins, in Ohio and Pennsylvania will leave the delegate count very close. Hillary will have been the winner in four of the five largest states. The tally of the popular vote from all the primaries—including Florida and Michigan—will be extremely close and whomever it favors, Hillary will almost certainly have been the first choice of registered Democrats.

Articles decrying the possibility that the superdelegates will decide the election are already legion, with the general theme being that the superdelegates should simply confirm the selection of the voters. But what would that mean, in specific terms? Should it be winner take all by state? Proportional by state? Or all the superdelegates simply to the candidate who won the most delegates? Or the winner of the popular vote? Or the winner among registered Democrats? And what about Florida and Michigan in these calculations? In short, either camp can make a “follow-the-voters” argument to suit its purposes.

And once you get past anything pretending to be a neutral basis for deciding how the superdelegates should vote, we are reduced to what will be universally perceived as an exercise in bare-knuckle politics. All the racial, gender, generational, and income contradictions in the party will play themselves out in an undemocratic process that will be utterly lacking in transparency. Paranoia will be rampant and dissatisfaction with the final result, whenever it is achieved, will be profound.

Such a process, inclusive of the unresolved conflict about Florida and Michigan, could last into the convention. I hope that the Obama camp chooses someone other than Ted Kennedy to lecture Hillary about the supposed damage she’ll be doing the party if she’s carrying on her fight through the summer. In 1980, Kennedy waited until the day before the convention began to abandon a challenge to Jimmy Carter, a sitting President, although he was behind by approximately a thousand delegates. Who’s going be the elder statesman to tell Hillary she should abandon her quest to be the first woman President because she trails by a few delegates, with Florida and Michigan still uncounted?

This nightmare scenario is all the more disturbing in light of the fact that the Democratic primary has witnessed unprecedented participation, turnout, and international attention. Democrats are widely reported to be wildly enthusiastic about their choice, as well as frequently anguished about that same choice when they’re alone in the ballot booth. Whether the drama concludes at the convention or before, either the woman or the African-American will walk away a bitter loser, and people who assume that this bitterness will not have broader repercussions for the party in November and beyond are kidding themselves.

Howard Dean has alluded to a possible “arrangement” to avoid the superdelegate scramble. However, with Obama currently claiming the Big Mo, serious discussion of such an arrangement is unlikely unless and until the results on March 4 make it apparent that we still have a stalemate. At the same time, notwithstanding the dearth of daylight between the candidates on policy or any history of personal animosity prior to the commencement of the campaign, the sheer ferocity of the conflict by that point, in the words of Donna Brazile, may make a “dream ticket” nothing more than a “fantasy ticket.” It may be a fantasy, but the alternative scenario for Democrats is a nightmare.

For this reason, I would submit that it is not too early to discuss what a Clinton/Obama “arrangement” would look like. In my humble opinion, it should resemble the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown partnership, but without the wiggle room. Hillary at the top of the ticket but publicly committed to serving only one term. Hillary the decision-maker, but Obama given major domestic portfolios. In short, a partnership that contemplates both a woman and an African-American in the White House and Democratic dominance of the executive branch for (hopefully) the next twelve years.

In fact, there is historical precedent for an attempt at a partnered presidency, which, in its eleventh hour character, offers lessons on how the process should not be conducted. In 1980, Ronald Reagan engaged in intense negotiations at the Republican convention for ex-President Gerald Ford to return as Reagan’s super-vice president. Later that night, the discussions finally faltered, Reagan picked up the phone and belatedly offered the vice-presidency to someone else . Enter George H. W. Bush and, eventually, George W. Bush. Of such missed opportunities and personal dynamics, history is made.

Clinton/Obama ’08: An unprecedented solution to an unprecedented situation.
Clay A. Dumas ’10, a Crimson associate editorial chair, is a social studies concentrator in Lowell House. He is a member of the Harvard Students for Hillary Steering Committee.