Posted by
Lady Logician on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:45:29 PM
So Senator Clinton did it...she pulled off another "must win" and is again back in the hunt...so much so that it has caused one writer to delve into the process and opine on "Why Hillary Clinton Should Be Winning."
The continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has become a
frenzy of debates and proclamations about democracy. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a
transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama's narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party's rank and file. If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.
These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a
state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the
Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections,
Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.
While there are certainly a number of peculiarities within the Democrats process that do deserve to be roundly derided, it does lead to a more serious question...why can't Barack Obama close this out? Let's take a look at their reasons...one at a time.
RACE: The jury is still out on whether a black man can overcome America's original sin and be elected president.
About one in five Pennsylvania voters said the race of the candidates was among the top factors in deciding how to vote, according to exit polls, and white voters who cited race supported Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.
Results from all the primaries suggest that whites who said race was important in picking their candidate have been about twice as likely to back Clinton as Obama.
I think this can put to rest the meme that the Democrats are a "color blind" party.
WORKING-CLASS VOTERS: Obama can't win the presidency unless he starts onnecting better with blue-collar voters.
The New York senator easily won among Pennsylvania voters without college degrees and those from families earning less than $50,000 a year. Gun owners, rural voters and churchgoing Democrats also backed Clinton.
These are the folks who Obama said "cling to" guns and God, an inelegant attempt to explain to San Francisco liberals how GOP operatives exploit Democratic voters in anxious economic times. He bowled (poorly) and drank beer in a feeble attempt to show a blue-collar touch.
No doubt about it....the San Francisco fundraiser hurt the Obama campaign more than he or his staff will ever admit. If he does still manage to pull off the Democratic nomination, this comment will come back to haunt him in the General Election.
FRIENDS IN TROUBLE: The longer the campaign goes, the more questions Obama aces about his friends and associates.
He was forced onto the defensive by incendiary comments by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko faces corruption charges. And McCain is raising questions about Obama's relationship with former 1960s radical William Ayers, who has been quoted in an interview as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs" decades ago.
This is something else that is hurting Senator Obama more than he cares to admit. He has surrounded himself with people who are - to put it nicely....an embarrassment.
INEXPERIENCE: It's true that Clinton has never run a government or a business, but many voters give her credit for proximity. They consider her experience as first lady preparation for the presidency.
By any measure, Obama is relatively inexperienced, having left the Illinois Legislature less than four years ago.
Senator Clinton has almost 8 years of Senatorial experience under her belt - compared to Senator Obama's 3. Does that really need any further discussion?
METTLE: Clinton's backers love the fact that she fought Republicans — not to mention the "right-wing conspiracy" — during her husband's presidency. Many Democrats wonder whether Obama is tough enough, a charge that he should be putting to rest in this brass-knuckle nominating contest. But he hasn't.
As we have seen in the last 10 days, Senator Obama has bought into the "Obamassiah" meme - hook, line and sinker. His sense of "predestination" has been a decided detriment as he just does not have the thick skin needed to trade punches with the Clinton's AND the national media. Maybe if he had stayed around Illinois state politics a little longer and mixed it up with Mayor Daley a little more often, he might have developed a thicker skin. As it is, many have already opined that if Sen. Obama can not handle the give and take of a national campaign, what will he do when he is faced with a hostile Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
While the partisan in me is quietly cheering the mayhem that the Democrats nominating process has become, the patriot in me is wishing that there was another option. We need to have a real discussion on the issues that are facing America today - we have real issues that need to be addressed. However, since the cult of personality has taken control, we will never see the discussion that most Americans need and crave.