President Obama?

Obama is a victor by any measure in the US8217; byzantine party nomination system. He won primaries or caucuses in 29 states, while Clinton managed victory in only 21. Of Clinton8217;s victories, two states Texas and Nevada ended up providing Obama with more delegates due to how they were allocated, while another two Michigan and Florida were penalised half their delegate votes as punishment for holding primaries early, against party regulations. By the end of the primaries, Obama led marginally in the popular vote, by about 0.1-0.2 per cent. He had also won more elected pledged delegates, and had secured the open support of more superdelegates.

But Clinton8217;s showing against a candidate anointed by many analysts as the party8217;s presumptive nominee in late February has been impressive. After a string of electoral victories had given Obama what eventually became an unassailable lead, Clinton managed wins in Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico and South Dakota, sometimes by margins as high as 41 per cent. Yet these sizeable victories were overturned by Obama8217;s wins in Mississippi, North Carolina and Oregon, as well as the Democratic Party8217;s decision last weekend to seat only half the delegates from Florida and Michigan.

What will be the impact of this long and closely-fought nomination battle? The Democratic Party could possibly be compelled to revise primary rules for the next election season in four years, perhaps replicating the Republicans8217; winner-takes-all system so as to ensure an earlier winner.

More immediately, however, Clinton will come under even greater pressure to withdraw from the race for the sake of party unity. She refused to do so on Tuesday, despite Obama8217;s declaration of victory and the media commentary in his favour. She will certainly have to withdraw by the convention in late August when the nominee is formally elected. But by staying in the race for another three months until the convention, she will be seen as helping the Republican Party8217;s presumptive nominee John McCain.

Clinton8217;s defeat is likely to place the Indian-American community in a quandary. The community8217;s support for Clinton has been substantial. Many Indian-Americans, while overwhelmingly Democratic, were offended by the Obama campaign8217;s infamous memo ridiculing Clinton as a senator from Punjab. The possible addition to the Republican ticket of Bobby Jindal, who joined McCain at a rally in Louisiana on Tuesday, may also cause some Indian-Americans to vote against Obama in November.

But Clinton8217;s defeat will also provide clarity for many among the larger voting populace and international followers of American politics. Obama and Clinton saw their policies overlapping on most key issues, and their campaign rhetoric changed rapidly based on immediate electoral contests. Most notably, the criticism of outsourcing by both Obama and Clinton surged considerably as they campaigned in the industrialised Midwestern states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania and West Virginia: the so-called 8216;Rust Belt8217;. In fact, Obama8217;s condemnation of outsourcing 8212; which had been so pronounced during his Iowa speech in January, as well as at his 2004 convention speech when he first announced his arrival on the national political stage 8212; was comparatively muted in St. Paul.

With the nomination secured, Oba-ma is likely to position himself in opposition to McCain and the Republican Party, providing clearer comparisons between the platforms of the two major parties8217; presumptive nominees. In fact, a significant portion of Obama8217;s victory speech was dedicated to denigrating McCain and his policies. But while his eyes may now be focused on the election in November, Obama is also likely to face mounting pressure from Clinton8217;s many supporters to take her on as his running mate.

The writer researches US foreign policy towards South Asia in Washington DC