Does Obama need the Democrats?

Until now, all the assumptions about Obama's aspirations to the presidential nomination have been based on the view that the Democratic party will decide which of the two candidates shall be nominated. This is surely the case with Hillary Clinton, whose own roots are deeply and inextricably bound up with the Democratic party's, and whose husband was a former Democratic president. For Hillary Clinton to break free of the Democratic party and run an independent campaign for the presidency is almost unthinkable. But is the same true of Obama?

Imagine, for a moment, that Clinton managed to do exceptionally well in Pennsylvania and the remaining primaries and caucuses, and - though still behind in pledged delegates - was able to persuade a significant majority of superdelegates that the clouds of doubt generated by the Rev Wright would render Obama too susceptible to the McCain candidacy to risk giving him the presidential nomination. Is it inconceivable that Obama would simply reject the vote of the superdelegates, claim the moral high ground, and launch his own independent campaign?

Throw into the equation that from the first opening salvoes of the campaign Obama has laid claim to moderates and centrists as his main electoral base, and that he has consistently deplored America's political polarisation into "red and blue states". An independent campaign for the presidency would be highly consistent with both his ideological stance and the profile of his voter appeal.

The particular circumstances which might trigger this hypothetical independent campaign are precisely the ones in which he won both the highest total of numerical votes and the largest number of pledged delegates, but was denied the Democratic nomination by superdelegates who were willing to override the votes of the majority. Since Obama has also consistently criticised the "old ways" of the Washington political classes, and has refused to be "pickled" by old-style politics, he would surely appear to be justified in rejecting a decision based on senior party apparatchiks conspiring in smoke-filled rooms.

Finally, would his rejection of the judgment of the Democratic party old guard, on a point of high moral principle, also not constitute the boldest and most direct rejection of the old style of politics, and a leap into the new, non-polarised polity of the future?

I raise these points because I believe they constitute a serious challenge to the universally accepted view that the Democratic party holds final say over Obama's presidential campaign. Perhaps he has become too large to be contained by a single party.

There are now signs that Obama's remarkable Pennsylvania speech last week on Tuesday 18 March has turned the tide of his political losses due to Rev Wright. Faced with a "firestorm" of criticism over the revelations about Rev Wright, Obama had a choice: to attempt to make a clean break from the incendiary anti-American comments of his former mentor, or to face directly into the problem and take the position that the Rev Wright's anger, though expressed in extreme terms, was common to black and ethnic experience in America, and needed to be faced and examined before genuine healing was possible. He took the latter option, and the signs are that his extraordinary and courageous gamble is paying off.

In the wake of the Pennsylvania speech, an increasing number of the more thoughtful commentators are reaching the view that this speech may have given final weight and shape to Obama's presidential ambitions. Few can deny that it was a magnificent oration, delivered under the highest pressure of circumstances, with a calm force and authority. It has transformed the Obama campaign from one which depended for its appeal on vague hopes of healing into a campaign of substance, able to stare the toxic problem of race directly in the eye and still hold out genuine hope of a larger eventual solution.

Perhaps it signals a qualitative change, too, in the way that we should look at Barack Obama and his campaign. Might it be that Obama, not least through that historic Pennsylvania speech, has simply become too large to stop, even by the superdelegates of the Democratic party? A candidate who was effectively a more powerful force in current politics than his nominating party would be an unprecedented event. But so much of Obama is remarkable that we should now consider even this as a distinct and plausible possibility.

If there is merit in these speculations, then the superdelegates of the Democratic party should be careful that are not under a delusion in believing they have the power to choose the presidential nominee, particularly against a majority of votes and pledged delegates. Instead of confirming Hillary Clinton as their nominee, their actions might merely launch an unprecedentedly powerful third candidate into the presidential race, one genuinely capable of breaking the mould of two-party politics.