Cokie Roberts...I can't believe I'm agreeing with Cokie Roberts...

First, I am very sorry to hear of Ted Kennedy's health problems. I know my readers will want to send their very best wishes to him and to his family.

On to business:

I must recapitulate a post by riverdaughter in today's Confluence. She took note of some very interesting observations that Cokie Roberts -- yes, Cokie Roberts -- had to say.

First, Roberts thinks that Clinton would be the stronger nominee against McCain.

Yes, the Clinton camp made strategic blunders that allowed Obama to score heavily in Republican states where few Democrats vote. But the real culprit is the party's stupid, self-destructive nominating system, which has two major flaws.

First, it was designed to anoint a nominee by early February, far too early in the process. The result: Obama built up an insurmountable lead at a time when he was still largely unblemished, untested and unscrutinized.

Roberts scries a wave of "buyer's remorse" within key voting blocks. I think she's right, but we need more data. I'd like to see a poll of Democrats: "Do you wish you had voted for someone else in your state's primary?" I suspect that the percentage of yea-sayers would be higher among Obama voters. (You all know what I would say.)

Second, the nominating system was completely incapable of reflecting these shifts. Not only were few states remaining on the calendar, the rules of proportional representation made it almost impossible for Clinton to catch up.

Since Feb. 19, seven states have voted. Clinton has won four — Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island —building up a popular-vote margin of 483,000. Yet her total gain in delegates was exactly five. In Texas, she won by more than 100,000 votes, but because of that state's ridiculous rules, she actually came out five delegates behind.

Roberts goes on to point out that Clinton won three swing states -- Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio -- yet received only 28 delegates for her troubles. Meanwhile, the rules alloted Obama 38 delegates for winning the crimson-red states of Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana.

Three months ago, they were convinced that Clinton was the easier candidate to beat, and she's hardly an ideal choice, not when more than half of all voters tell ABC pollsters they don't like or trust her. But many GOP insiders now see her as a tougher, more tenacious rival, and the latest polls support that judgment.

At this point, Cokie makes what may be her most controversial statement, since it gets us into Geraldine Ferraro territory. And yet I think Roberts is right -- and I now see Ferraro's statement in a new light.

So why don't Democratic leaders and superdelegates face these facts and shift to Clinton? One reason is race. It's true, as Obama says, that being black in America has hardly been a political asset, given the fact that he's the only African-American in the U.S. Senate.

But at this time, in this party, being black is an enormous asset. Given America's long, torturous path toward racial justice, many Democrats simply cannot imagine denying the nomination to the first serious African-American candidate for president.

From a moral perspective, that's a noble judgment. From a political perspective, it could cost Democrats the White House.

I can guess how the prog-bloggers will look at these words: They will think that Roberts is saying that an African American cannot win in the general, due to racism. But that's not the point she is making. (And it isn't true.)

Roberts, I think, is saying that any non-black candidate with Obama's belatedly-discovered negatives would have been cast adrift by the party leadership and by the activists. But after a certain point in the primary process, the party found that it could not cut loose Obama without infuriating black voters. I can certainly understand that sense of outrage. To the shame of this nation, neither party has ever nominated a black person for President or Vice President.

I would like to suggest another reason why a black candidate might have an advantage. Obama did very well in Democratic primaries in red states. In such states, the Democratic voters tend to be either black people or white "creative class" types. I picture these latter voters as alienated New Yorker readers surrounded by Flannery O'Connor characters. These marooned liberals must feel a lot like Lisa Simpson -- they cannot believe the people they have to live with. So the red state "Lisas" look for the candidate who best exemplifies their sense of difference.

By the way... The caucus problem wasn't just a Texas thing. A comment appended to the above-noted Confluence story comes from credentials committee chair for a Kansas caucus:

So the Kansas Democratic Party sort of opened the caucuses. As long as you registered as a Democrat at the Caucus, you could participate. We had thousands, thousands & thousands of Republicans & Independents flood our caucuses. And THEY caucused for Barack Obama.

Oh, I know that there were Democrats in that crowd supporting Obama too... But mostly? Those caucusing for Obama at my caucus and my parents caucus (up the road) were independents & Republicans. We know that because, we had to get them registered before we could get started.