The Democratic Party is insane.
The Democratic Party is insane. Obama has in the last month alienated the last thirty-seven swing voters in the country by standing up for his (justifiably) angry pastor in the name of racial solidarity, insulted three quarters of America by insinuating that their love of guns stems from paranoid neuroses, and touted with a straight face his conversion of political convenience as an authentic spiritual experience rather than a cynical ploy to garner a captive constituency when he started his political career in Illinois. While I might agree with him on these matters, I hope I don't have to vote for him. Meanwhile, Hillary continues to defend herself admirably, against not just Obama's solipsistic rhetorical attacks (the reason why the Republicans feel so comfortable attacking you... etc) but against the monolithically hostile media. She does so firmly and intelligently but is nevertheless consistently painted as the bad guy. Yet she continues to win the sates that matter, and is a spurious party decision away from actually being in the lead (would it matter to the outcome if the Florida Primary was held early or tomorrow? No.)
Adopting Barak's supporters campaign techniques for the sake of exploring an idea, Obama should drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination. First, his lead is illusory (Florida and Michigan), likely based on decisions made by the Democratic party members to punish the Clintons for their outrageous behavior in office that these party members perceive as the root-cause of the Bush ascendency.
Second, middle-America sees through his everyman facade. They see an ambitious politician and Ivy-league-educated law-school professor who can't bowl, smugly draped in erudition, pretense, and the support of upper-class intelligentsia whose only 'idea' is 'change' but whose political platform actually offers none.
Third, Oprah cannot deliver a monolithic women’s' vote. Every time Obama smugly ridicules Hillary's ideas, blames her for her husband's legacy, or gropes her uncomfortably at public events, centrist women cringe and take note. Just as the racial subtext is tremendously important to this contest (and largely unacknowledged as such), so are the uncomfortable indicators of traditional gender relations that are underscored by the uneven treatment of the candidates in the media.
Fourth, the one key vote that separates Hillary from Obama, namely the Iraq war, does really not mean what doves want it to mean. I do applaud him for being one of a small and largely silent minority who saw through the lies and opposed the war. However he has supported escalating the Afghanistan war, and expanding it into Pakistan. This is not the thinking of a Dove, and his vote against war seems in this light seems simply to be partisan politics, not wisdom. This will undoubtedly rear its head when the national campaign starts.
Finally, and most importantly, he is perceived to be the more liberal of the two. For the record this does not offend me. However the most important segment of the voting population has been in all of the recent elections the swing voters, not the ideologues. Supporters of Obama believe that the Democrats will crystallize behind whichever candidate emerges. Is this the case given how centrist McCain is perceived to be, and that he was seriously mentioned as a running mate for a Democrat in the last election? To this supporters of Obama reply that it won't matter because the whole country is shifting left after years of neo-conservatism. Is this the case, or are voters looking for a moderate position after a disastrous near-decade of ideology? I'm not willing to gamble the next 25 years of the Supreme Court on audacious ill-conceived optimism (that Red-Americans are rehabilitatable, crazy, or dupes). I do not believe that the Democratic base is buying that either, given the primary results from the traditionally Blue-states. And while I appreciate the input from the wide-eyed hyper-idealistic Red-state Democrats who want their voices heard after years of neglect and abuse and urban elites insulated from reality by their loft, I suggest to them that they consider that McCain will win their states handily and that in a reasonable pragmatic analysis their optimism is sending a sacrificial lamb rather than a lion to the battlefield states that might very well swing to a moderate. Obama is a tremendously interesting candidate and an admirable man. He is not the best person for the Democratic candidacy and the sooner he recognizes that, the better-off we'll all be.
Incidentally, to those of us that feel this way, Hillary is not the dangerous and divisive candidate. It's April. Hillary and Barak are separated by a relatively small margin. She's still likely to win states even though she's attacked and smeared Left and Right. She's not dividing the Democrats. Something else is. However, for many of us, neither is Obama. This situation is well beyond the simple Nader-gadfly-syndrome. It speaks not of a fundamental problem with two-party politics (which might be the case), but practically speaking of an inability for Left-leaning interest groups to think strategically and to form viable political coalitions. This why I believe the Right has been so dominant in national elections over the last several generations. The Left can do fine in local constituencies that feed legislatures, but as soon as it's time to rally around a central point something gets in the way. Unfortunately I fear that it's a bit late to figure out how to fix this structural problem.
Adopting Barak's supporters campaign techniques for the sake of exploring an idea, Obama should drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination. First, his lead is illusory (Florida and Michigan), likely based on decisions made by the Democratic party members to punish the Clintons for their outrageous behavior in office that these party members perceive as the root-cause of the Bush ascendency.
Second, middle-America sees through his everyman facade. They see an ambitious politician and Ivy-league-educated law-school professor who can't bowl, smugly draped in erudition, pretense, and the support of upper-class intelligentsia whose only 'idea' is 'change' but whose political platform actually offers none.
Third, Oprah cannot deliver a monolithic women’s' vote. Every time Obama smugly ridicules Hillary's ideas, blames her for her husband's legacy, or gropes her uncomfortably at public events, centrist women cringe and take note. Just as the racial subtext is tremendously important to this contest (and largely unacknowledged as such), so are the uncomfortable indicators of traditional gender relations that are underscored by the uneven treatment of the candidates in the media.
Fourth, the one key vote that separates Hillary from Obama, namely the Iraq war, does really not mean what doves want it to mean. I do applaud him for being one of a small and largely silent minority who saw through the lies and opposed the war. However he has supported escalating the Afghanistan war, and expanding it into Pakistan. This is not the thinking of a Dove, and his vote against war seems in this light seems simply to be partisan politics, not wisdom. This will undoubtedly rear its head when the national campaign starts.
Finally, and most importantly, he is perceived to be the more liberal of the two. For the record this does not offend me. However the most important segment of the voting population has been in all of the recent elections the swing voters, not the ideologues. Supporters of Obama believe that the Democrats will crystallize behind whichever candidate emerges. Is this the case given how centrist McCain is perceived to be, and that he was seriously mentioned as a running mate for a Democrat in the last election? To this supporters of Obama reply that it won't matter because the whole country is shifting left after years of neo-conservatism. Is this the case, or are voters looking for a moderate position after a disastrous near-decade of ideology? I'm not willing to gamble the next 25 years of the Supreme Court on audacious ill-conceived optimism (that Red-Americans are rehabilitatable, crazy, or dupes). I do not believe that the Democratic base is buying that either, given the primary results from the traditionally Blue-states. And while I appreciate the input from the wide-eyed hyper-idealistic Red-state Democrats who want their voices heard after years of neglect and abuse and urban elites insulated from reality by their loft, I suggest to them that they consider that McCain will win their states handily and that in a reasonable pragmatic analysis their optimism is sending a sacrificial lamb rather than a lion to the battlefield states that might very well swing to a moderate. Obama is a tremendously interesting candidate and an admirable man. He is not the best person for the Democratic candidacy and the sooner he recognizes that, the better-off we'll all be.
Incidentally, to those of us that feel this way, Hillary is not the dangerous and divisive candidate. It's April. Hillary and Barak are separated by a relatively small margin. She's still likely to win states even though she's attacked and smeared Left and Right. She's not dividing the Democrats. Something else is. However, for many of us, neither is Obama. This situation is well beyond the simple Nader-gadfly-syndrome. It speaks not of a fundamental problem with two-party politics (which might be the case), but practically speaking of an inability for Left-leaning interest groups to think strategically and to form viable political coalitions. This why I believe the Right has been so dominant in national elections over the last several generations. The Left can do fine in local constituencies that feed legislatures, but as soon as it's time to rally around a central point something gets in the way. Unfortunately I fear that it's a bit late to figure out how to fix this structural problem.