What to look for next in unpredictable Clinton-Obama race

Paul Green is director, Institute for Politics at Roosevelt University Chicago and Schaumburg

The ongoing contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination finds pundits, politicians and even professors filling the airwaves and newspaper columns with insights and predictions.

The bottom line is that nobody knows what is going to happen. The battle between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is unlike any other nomination tussle in history. It is the political equivalent of Lewis and Clark's "Voyage of Discovery" up the Missouri River a little over 200 years ago -- like the explorers, Obama and Clinton are in uncharted waters. One fact is certain -- the next battlefield for the opposing Obama and Clinton armies will be in Pennsylvania on April 22. In the Keystone State, Obama will seek once again to deliver a nomination knockout punch on his tenacious foe.

Twice Clinton has bounced off the canvass after significant Obama primary and caucus wins to land some roundhouse punches of her own. The big question facing the Clinton campaign -- can she do it again on April 22?

Already strange things are happening in Pennsylvania. With less than a month to go before primary day, over 111,000 voters have registered as new Democrats in Pennsylvania. This incredible number is crucial because unlike many other states, e.g. Illinois, primary voters in Pennsylvania are limited to only registered party members. Thus, the question is, who are these people? Are they energized independents, young people or party- switching Republicans? And if they are the latter, are these folks GOP social conservatives hoping to derail Obama's campaign per the pleas of conservative radio talk show personalities? This later mini-Machiavellian movement is based on the premise that Clinton will be a weaker Democratic nominee than Obama.

As recently as 20 years ago, it would have been unthinkable to believe the electronic media could play or try to play such an overt political role in electoral politics -- but times have changed. In fact, I have argued that if in one of their endless number of debates Obama and Clinton had agreed to trade respective positions on issues, few if anyone would notice or care.

The reality of this unique battle is not about issues -- but about race and gender. It has been that way since the Iowa caucuses despite some sugarcoating from the candidates and their campaign teams. Given the above, it is quite interesting that a new theory is being pushed capsulizing the race issue and its impact on past and upcoming primary and caucus battles. In brief, it is argued that Obama wins in states that have either a substantial number of African-American voters or in states with minimal black voters. On the other hand Clinton wins those states where African-American voters make up a "middling amount" of the electorate -- 5 percent to 15 percent.

Whether this theory has any predictive or statistical validity is open to question -- though on the surface most past Obama/Clinton contests (save Illinois) fit its suggested pattern. Thus, Clintonites should be hopeful about Pennsylvania. Its race composition falls into the "middling" category. Moreover its demographics nearly mirror Ohio -- a state Clinton won handily earlier this month.

All theories aside, one thing is predictable in my view -- the longer the Obama v. Clinton battle rages the more difficult it will be to unite the Democratic Party for the general election campaign.

Imagine this nomination contest lasting until the August national convention in Denver and the largely ceremonial "super delegates" suddenly become the nominee deciders of this marathon combat. It would be a Democratic "nightmare" forcing its candidate sleepless nights as he/she tried to repair the intra-party damage seen on nationwide television.