Democrats can turn stalemate into victory

[metta 0]

Democrats can turn stalemate into victory

BY DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN

With her decisive win in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton has tied the race with Barack Obama. Although Obama has a small but apparently insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, Hillary has now won every large state in the country. (Obama's home state of Illinois and Missouri are the only excep tions). If Florida and Michigan's primary votes had been counted, she would enjoy a lead in the popular vote.

Democrats intent on winning in November would be foolish not to consider the strengths that Clinton has demonstrated in must-win swing states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Blue-collar vot ers favor her. Florida voters favor her. Most significant of all, Catholic voters favor her and say they'd de fect to John McCain in significant numbers if Obama were to be the Democratic candidate. This should give pause to even the most passionate Obama supporters.

Clinton and her supporters need to pause, too. As a political consultant, I know how powerful attacks can be. She might well win by going negative. But with McCain showing striking strength in hypothetical matchups with both candidates, a drawn-out, negative campaign that goes all the way to the Democratic convention in August could do great damage to the party's nominee.

There's an approach that would serve the Democratic Party far bet ter. To break a tie, the party should go to overtime -- three Lincoln- Douglas debates, followed by a superdelegate caucus that will select the Democratic nominee.

For months, party leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed confidence that the Democrats would choose their nominee well before the convention in August. It's now clear that's not going to happen.

Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman, has rejected the one concrete proposal that would have brought the contest to an end -- Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen's proposal for a superdelegate caucus in June -- on the grounds that "we can't have a convention of superdelegates be cause it would look like 330 delegates are overriding the wishes of 30 million voters."

But there's another variation. The public's fascination with Obama-Clinton offers the Democratic Party with a rare -- perhaps unprecedented -- opportunity to dominate news cycles for months to come. In place of the current situation, where memo-slinging, muckraking and conference call at tacks dominate the news, party leaders need to structure the Obama-Clinton contest in a way that grabs the public's attention, presents the public with an attractive vision of Democratic change and resolves the nomination.

The public wants historic change, and the Democrats have two candidates who can deliver it. It's time to craft a process that will select the better nominee while highlighting Democrats' plans to provide the sweeping change that Americans clearly want.

Instead of allowing the two campaigns to turn on each other, party leaders such as Pelosi, Reid and former Vice President Al Gore need to lay down guidelines for the remainder of the campaign. The process they develop should be equitable to both candidates. It should also be designed to monopolize the nation's attention for the next three months. This will be a historic election. Democrats need to develop a process suitable to the occasion.

The model should be the Lin coln-Douglas debates. Each debate would have a different subject mat ter: The first would be a general debate; the second would be on foreign policy; the third would address economic issues. Unlike the rightly criticized format of the last debate in Pennsylvania, where media showboating distracted from the candidates' attempts to discuss the issues, a Lincoln-Douglas format would allow both candidates to showcase their strengths. Both would be allowed to make small set speeches on the topic at hand. Both would be allowed to subject the other to a cross.

These debates would captivate the American public. The networks would scramble to carry them live. Millions would watch. The country would be riveted. Both candidates have appealing, well-thought-out plans to address this country's biggest problems -- the economy, health care, the war in Iraq. A se ries of debates would result in a bonanza of free air time to present these ideas to the public.

Following these debates, national polls would be conducted to see how the two candidates fared. Forums would be held, opinion articles would be written and the electorate would be engaged in passionate discussions. Only then would the party move forward with a variant on the Bredesen proposal.

After the July Fourth holiday, the superdelegates would formally gather in Washington, D.C. They should deliberate for several days and then choose the nominee.

I'll hazard a further thought. The winner should then offer the loser the vice presidential nominee. Party unity demands it.

Douglas E. Schoen is a Democratic strategist unaffiliated with either the Clinton or Obama campaign. He served for six years as a political adviser to President Bill Clinton. He is author of "Declaring Indepen dence: the Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

With her decisive win in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton has tied the race with Barack Obama.

Wrong. But thanks for playing.

[one...two...tree 2,762]