If Obama Loses
As I was saying in this cyberspace the other day, it doesn't matter what happens on Tuesday in Ohio or Texas. Hillary could lose them both. Whatever the pundits are saying, she's not out until the last superdelegate refuses to cooperate or is found in the river or is indicted. We have to be realistic. The Clintonistas are not going to go down easily.
The second question in this civics course I am giving, based on the teachings of Prof. Harold Ickes and his "Practical Politics 101" playbooks: What happens if Obama really loses, despite the awesome string of state victories and his probable narrow lead at the convention this summer in Denver?
In two words: nothing good.
Obama has what George Bush the Father used to call "the vision thing." Obi has certainly elevated political discourse. The state of the stump speech in the Bushian Era has been as low as a TV station owner explaining why charging high prices for political spots is the best thing to happen to democracy since the invention of treating voters to free drinks on primary days.
Obama is the best public speaker the Democrats have had since Adlai Stevenson, who managed to lose in 1952 and 1956 against the nation's number one mumbler, the sainted Dwight Eisenhower, a master of inchoate inarticulateness.
Obi's calls for change are thrilling, even though it's never exactly clear what the changes will be. The French Revolution also promised change. The fear--as the French put it, at least those who hadn't lost their heads--always is "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." ("The more things change, the more they stay the same").
If this was a fair world, Obama deserves to win. But who said life is fair?
The party hacks that in the end will put Hillary over the top will argue that Obama can't win in a general election. Whatever they tell the pollsters, when they go into the privacy of the polling booth, the American people are not going to vote for a black man as President.
The pros will ignore the fact that Hillary as the nominee will bring out another form of bias: between the latent and overt hatred of the Clintons, you have a real cross section of the American electorate.
That said, Obama might offset the bigot vote with the young people vote as he did in Iowa.
Young people today are notorious idiots when it comes to politics. They have no idea about past history or how the political process works.
This is the Palm Generation. These are the people whose entire life is in the palm of their hands. Whether it's a Blackberry, a Chocolate, a Voyager or a pink Verizon Iphone, what they know or need to know or care about is on the mini-screen. It is their worldview. Keeping up with the hard news by snooping on their friends' Facebook pages, or texting the latest gossip, snapping pictures, listening to their music or watching snippets of favorite TV shows, minimization is their Vision Thing. Everything reduced to a sound bite is fun.
We have raised an entire generation that looks to their palms for answers. Truly a frightening thing.
Nevertheless, Obama has performed a public service getting the Palm Generation fired up enough to become active in politics, a form of entertainment usually considered borrrrrrrirrng.
It's a tradition of the two party system that it's okay to battle intensely for the nomination, but then we hold our noses and support the winning candidate.
The big question now is if the Clintons do steal the nomination, even though Obama is 100 votes or so ahead, what will the Obama groupies do? Will the Changesters rally around the party nominee, as good Democrats have always done? My party right or wrong and all that sort of rubbish.
My prediction: this will not be the case.
Barack supporters are not going to be too happy. All of those young people who waved the iPhones are going to feel betrayed. Cries of "We Wuz Robbed" will be heard from the fruited plains and cornfields of Iowa to the alabaster shining shores. We can expect a lot of grumblings and protests from the fired up Obi youth The Will of the People has been thwarted, they will argue, not realizing that only a deceptively small percentage of the electorate actually comes out for caucus or primaries, and their numbers are always magnified by cable network news organization hungry for a story to hype.
You can hear it coming: politics is corrupt. The system stinks. The Palm Generation, the Vision Thing People, the Changelings will go back to their Iphones. Wake us up when it's over. We're dropping out again.
The next unanswered question: do the Hillary people support Obi, if I am wrong about who wins, or do they spend the whole campaign undermining him, as they did on the road to Denver. Will Clintonistas work for Obama, or do they go to Camp Clinton somewhere and figure out how to lay down and how to hurt Obama. So they can run next time, after the Republicans win.
Either way, whoever wins or loses, the Democratic Party, despite its over-confidence that anybody can beat the Bush Legacy, is in a lot of trouble. Are they really about to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think the author is right about the youth. About a lot of us who are well beyond youth. If Obama doesn't get the nomination, we are likely lost come November. We migrated to Obama for a reason. Bill Clinton's presidency, Hillary's knowledge base, articulated plans and her Democratic party support, she had it all, yet none of that won us over. Her husband's race baiting and her lies about a good man pushed us further away. Why would we support human beings such as that in November?
The author is wrong about the Clinton's pursuit of this nomination. They will fight hard and dirty, but they are smart enough to know when they are involved in a lost cause. Or so I believe.
The most interesting point he makes relates to their undermining Obama's chances in November. The greater part of me says her pride will not allow her to run a second time for fear of utter humiliation. But that doesn't mean they won't attempt to sabotage Obama as a means of proving "I told you so" and undoing the work Howard Dean accomplished counter to their recommendations with his 50-state plan. But sabotage would be difficult, if not impossible. We live in the world of those magic palms, the internet, and the marriage of those technologies to the hopes and money of the voting youth and their older Obama peers, both Democratic and Republican. These can't be controlled by party bosses, editorialists, or the ebb and flow of big money.
In another age, the Clintons might have had leverage after a primary loss. Even had leverage to stop an upstart during the primary season. I'm not so sure they have that ability in a flat world.
rw'61,
Agree on all points. Those of us who are a generation or so older than "the youth" who have studied, observed and with great deliberation chosen Obama will be greatly saddened if he is defeated. Many of us supported Bill Clinton when it was not easy to do. Many of us have worked to get the Democratic Party back into a responsive org and are livid that the leadership seemed to make so many mistakes with both Gore and Kerry.
We see those same kinds of leadership errors now, except for the "50 state campaign" and some of the refreshing ideas that emerge DESPITE the leadership. The Penns, the Shrums, the McAuliffes, the Carvilles and Begalas need to back off and allow newer and smarter people to lead the party.
The history of the Clintons has been a history of dogged determination, obsession. They are now so rabidly determined to snag this nomination that it really does seem likely they'll sabotage anyone who stands in their way. Their blatant sense of entitlement is disgusting.
The Clinton "experience" with negative campaigning against them has to do with the bad personal choices they made over a period of years. Those bad Clinton choices, and the resulting negative PR about the Clintons, cannot be translated into smart governance.
We lose this one to an elderly McCain whose ideas are dangerously outmoded, we are probably permanently marginalized as the fundys, the evangels, the war-mongers gain more power, influence and more numbers.
Obama is needed by the party and the country, he is the best choice for the Democratic Party; it is to be hoped that the party recognizes this man and elect him. Those who would stay home or vote for McCain have not studied the dangerous implications of a GOP victory in 2008, and would assist in more Bush/neocon murderous wars and corruption.
I can tell you as a Clinton supporter that I and many other Clintonistas will not support Obama if he's the nominee. Obama was so arrogant to pubicly declare his assumption that we Clinton supporters would support him if he was the nomine while his supporters probably would not. If he does win the nomination, then he'll be in for a big surprise when he discovers that many Clinton supporters do not like him nor trust him one bit and we will not waste our vote on him. We've watched him use Republican attacks on Clinton, accuse her of race baiting with absolutely NO proof, inflaming + distorting statements for character assassination while claiming to be above dirty politics, etc etc. At this point, even McCain appears better than Obama to me - though I'm not sure that I would actually vote for McCain, but I do know 100% that I will NEVER vote for Obama.
Another thing is that even though many Obama supporters will not vote for her, I doubt they would vote for McCain so they'll just stay home like they usually do. This wouldn't be terribly disruptive since college students tend to not vote anyways, but if Clinton supporters stay home, it would be more disruptive since her supporters tend to be older and more likely to vote. Many women voters have been demoralized to see so many sexist taunts in this primary race and they may be less enthusiastic to choose between two male candidates. I for one was extremely excited about the 2008 election and initially was happy with all 3 top Dem candidates, but now I've become more bitter, especially in regard to the sexism that has emerged in the media coverage. Until there are more high profile female news anchors, I no longer want to watch the currently male dominated news coverage.
That you and your fellow "Clintonistas" as you call them might vote for McCain is not surprising. Clinton and McCain get along well because they are virtually the same.
You are not a feminist or a caring person if you do ANYTHING to help McCain. If anything happens to the children of my friends or to my soldier-aged children because bitter women like you help elect another war-monger into office -- may God have mercy on your soul.
As an Obama supporter and Yellow Dog Dem, I will vote for Hillary in November if she is the candidate. As an Obama campaign volunteer I can tell you that the Independents and disenchanted Republicans will not.
So what? It isn't a slight on Hillary or womanhood, it is just reality.
But if you want to hide behind "feminism" to bring another blood-thirsty, old white Republican man into office, I hope you suffer as you see the casualties mount up during the next war.
Bill Clinton dismissed Obama's victory in South Carolina by saying that Jesse Jackson won the state. Although this is not overt race-baiting anymore than the cartoon sketch on last Saturday's Night Live show which showed Obama hiding from Jackson and putting a dog collar on Sharpton to stun him, or having his wife divert attention by vomiting (boy was that a funny sketch, if you know all the meanings of funny) it was discounting a victory rather ungraciously and petulantly bringing in a black man's victory to make fun of Obama.
The real sexism going on in the Obama/Clinton debate are those feminists who bow to the idolatry of gender politics and refuse to accept the inspiration and clarity of a superior candidate's intellect and communication skills. Hillary Clinton is not disliked because of her sex, but for the clear and present misrepresentation of her record/experience, her temperament, and the content of her character. Clinton's negatives are tied with the disappointing administration of her husband more than anything else.
One proof of the race baiting: Hillary already apologized for Bill. Since she admits it, can't you? Really, I think you may have described the other camp to a tee. Meanwhile, I would encourage you to simply compare the senatorial records of these two candidates, and then come back and tell me who is for real. It is so easy to attck. It might take some effort to get at the facts. It is our responsibility to dig for the truth, because the pundits and news agencies won't provide anything but sensationalized craziness. You are so mad at Obama. Maybe he did something wrong. But why deny the history of the Clinton's in your argument? That is why it clearly makes no sense. I think that compared to the Clintons, Obama is about as clean as you can get. Look at their records. All of them - not just cherry picking to further the propaganda. Let's all take some responsibility and dig deeper - deeper than these attackers would prefer, to get at the truth of BOTH candidates.
"older, and more likely to vote" ? maybe, i can't discount that possiblity (all recent evidence aside)
But why would you NEVER vote for Obama? Did he call your girl on her BS too indelicately? As to sexcism in the Media, you have a point, but she'd face far worse as Pres. And if this is the best attitude she can come up with in response to personal attacks, how do you think she's gonna deal with our global neighbors (who will have none of our qualms about Political Correctness)? Your're bitter because the Boys were mean to the Girl?? next time find a Margaret Thatcher, not an Eva Peron.....
Well, Kordo, the tone of your response pretty much presents the best example of what laurelnyc is saying, I think.
How insanely insipid to characterize young people as the palm generation. If a curmudgeon merely has to guffaw to prove his point, then he has actually contributed to the downfall of the America. It is also possible that these same electrified palms are extremely well-informed about issues. That they understand that there is substance to the Obama movement. That the Clinton's are supporters of the global power elites which seek to form the North American Union and digitize personal bank accounts. That this generation has decided that their father's oldsmobile and offline newspaper is a relic of the most selfish era of our time, the industrial revolution. Change is now, people. This is literally, our last chance.
I think he was writing that way so Clinton supporters would pay attention. As a boomer myself, I can see the writing on the wall - this is deciding the future of the party.
Too many folks my age now believe you have to be 50+ to have a valid opinion. They pretend it's wisdom or experience. It's just selfish hubris. They were damn confident in their opinions when they were 20 and 30 somethings.
Just ask them if they were right to vote for Clinton in 92. Then ask them how old they were back then.
Peace.
I think it's even more ingrained than a generational selfishness. I think it might even be cultural differences. Teamwork, validation, and even some coddling have created a generation of young people -- which I am a part of -- that believe an opinion is valid because of its merits just as much as its valid because of who it comes from. I've experienced this in my professional life plenty of times and am not suprised to see it in other areas of politics too.
Age does not imply wisdom, nor does youth imply vitality.
This is so true. The Clintons I voted for in '92 and '96 either changed into these unbelievable beings or they were always this way and I refused to see it. I didn't know I voted for the two of them but according to Hillary, that's what I got. So if I had the two of them all along then and I see the two of them now, what I see are absolutely no different than what we have had the past seven years.
In spite of Bill's denials, we know they both supported the war. We know she has continued to support Bush on Iran and Bush will likely try to go into Iran before he leaves so we can continue with McCain. So we will have the absolute same, courtesy of the Clintons for an unending period of time. Would I continue to support the Clintons? What is the difference? She votes the same as McCain. So why vote? That is the dilemma of the Democratic Party. If Hillary steals the nomination, you will have two GOP candidates. They may as well be on the same ticket.
You are absolutely right, those young fired up voters for Obama will be extremely upset and emotionally disenchanted! I would venture to bet that a large percentage will not vote at all, and as for the small percentage that remains, I doubt they will all flock to Hillary, the one that they may see as a cheater who stole the elections from their man Obama. If they vote, they may protest and vote McCain or even that unmentionable third party spoiler who likes to run every four years or so to be known in history as the one who messed up the elections with his 3% or so votes. Nevertheless, I am sure they will all be fairly sore and that can't be a good thing for Hillary if the super delegates do push her over when and if Obama has the popular vote in the end.
And the over-confidence regarding the "anyone can beat the Bush legacy" is not a good foundation to base optimism on. McCain is not Bush, Bush is not running for a thrid term and McCain has gone against Bush in things like the tax refunds etc. He is also one of the senators who chose to unite senate members from the right and left to form committees to get things done in a non-partisan way, and he is the one who approached Obama to join them and the one who was told by Obama, in no uncertain terms, that he would not join the more senior members of both parties in this effort, (a choice that could hurt him if he is the winner of the primary - being that his campaign is sending out a message of "bipartisan" government)
So it is really far from a done-deal for the democrats in this election. The "bush legacy" has nothing to do with McCain, (proven many times) and he represents someone who is not favored by all those on the right, many conservatives are not happy with him. A democrat senator came out early in the race supporting McCain and with that type of REAL bipartisan commitment on both their parts and the committees who he helped create, his bipartisan message will be backed up with real facts, something that the Obama campaign or the Hillary campaign cannot do. And since the tide of the moment with young new voters who back Obama and his more positive, upbeat, non-mudslinging message of bipartisanship, is to support the new, turn away from the dirty politics and discuss the issues and create a more positive government, those disenfranchised voters should Hillary win, (those who vote anyway) may see McCain as the candidate who brings positive change, real bipartisanship and a more positive white house experience -- and Hillary will be seen as the bashing, trashing, old mudslinging politician that they are telling us they are against.
According to the latest Pew research poll, 25% of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain if Obama get the nomination, while 10% of Obama supporters will vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nomination.
Which just means that despite everything the Clintonites are telling you about Obama's supporters being dumb, naive, duped, they--the Obama supporters--are the more responsible, clear-headed ones, the ones who realize that while they ardently support their candidate now, if it comes to a general election between a war-mongering Republican and their second choice democratic candidate, they have no choice but to vote for the Democrat. That's the responsible, adult thing to do, and right now more Obama supporters than Clinton ones are willing to say it. Paul Krugman is definitely wrong on where all the hostility and intolerance is coming from.
For those Clintonians who say they are unwilling to support Obama in a general election matchup against McCain, the very simple and urgent question is "why not?"
1)Their political positions are very, very similar, as they themselves admit.
2)Experience, she has more, but it's not that cut and dry, given that we don't know much about her actual experience as First Lady. (Example: claim in 3am ad that "she knows the world's leaders?" What does that even mean? She met the ones who were around in the 90s at state dinners?)
3) If you want to really look at their comparative experience, compare their senate records:
http://www
4)He is a million times better than McCain. Unlike McCain, he won't get us into war in Iran; he will not support tax cuts for the rich; he will get us a lot closer to universal healthcare than McCain; he will value diplomacy again unlike McCain; he will do a lot more for labor and the environment than McCain.
Grow up. Support your candidate now. In November, support a democrat. Obama people--the alleged adolescents--mostly see this. The mature selfish Clintonites seem not to.
Obama--Spring 08
Democrat-November 08
What if Obama loses? Now that's an outcome I can vote for. Thanks for spelling it out. I really don't want Mr. Caucus for President. And maybe the Palm Generation will grow up. Another outcome I'll celebrate. Obama losing? I feel the audacity of hope! Thank you!
Sadly, I believe you are right...th
WAKE UP........
Yeah, yeah, vote for Obama or you'll shoot the dog.
Before the primaries every started EVERYONE knew the rules of the game. Obama knew how important the super delegates would be. Now that Obama might lose based on the pre-existing rules, we get the whining from the Obamists about how unfair it all is. The rules may be rotten, but they are the same rules all the other candidates have based their strategies on as well.
I'll support the Democratic nominee. I wish the same could be said for the Obama fanatics.
Just like HRC knew the rules of Michigan and Florida but now seeks to change them. Just an observation but I see far less complaining from the Obama campaign. In fact, if he were to run the country like his campaign, the country might do very well.
The people who will not support Hillary are not people who weave threats out of their little snits. They are not young people as much as older people who have been disenfranchised by both parties. They are black, and they see a chance to vote for a superior candidate who just happens to be black.
If the cynics running Hillary's campaign succeed in spoiling our best chance for a new politics of hope and cooperation, they will effectively disenfranchise these voters, young and old, yet again.
Obama supporters include a lot of young people, and these young people share the sentiments of a majority of older people that Hillary is not the right candidate to guide the party and the nation away from the old politics of division and triangulation. It's more than just a perception if you look at the smug, dismissive tactics they use to try and claw their way back into relevance.
Heard that. White Boys for Obama!
Hi Marvin, I think you are probably right. Unless Obama wins by a landslide, the Clinton camp will use it's influence with party bosses to make sure Obama doesn't get the nomination. People can justify and rationalize anything. This could be done by insisting on "do-overs" in Florida and Michigan for example. And if this does happen, and the election is stolen, they will think that those who voted for Obama will get over it. Look at Bush, it seemed to work for him!
With Bush, the Republican base got a guaranteed tax cut. After Hillary steals the nomination, you would get the kind of dispiriting shot to the party that Hubert Humphrey's nomination gave us. A nice fellow, a hard worker, but too compromising and involved in the war to present himself as a strong opponent to Nixon.
Absent direct payments for their votes as Bush's insane tax cuts gave, you can count a lot of people back out of the process and kiss a clear working majority in Congress goodbye. The Clintons are ready to do this for us if we want. Otherwise, we're sexist, we are naive, we are too young, we are bamboozled, we are hypnotized, we are just plain not grateful for their ambition.
I'm one of these 'Changesters' you speak of and to me a Hillary victory equals the implosion of the Democratic party. The young will stay home, the black folk will stay home, and the Obamacans will stay home.
I'm no longer in my 30's, but I'm one of those people who intend to stay home in November if Hillary is the nominee. And I'm a white woman.
Hello, Jules135..
I'm a Priceton educated, black woman (from the "south") who will stay home in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee...
You see, unlike the "Twenty some-things" who swoon over Obama's flowery rhetoric, I have a mortgage, a car payment, and a kid to put through college...
....And although I don't know how you could possibly justify your support for Obama - especailly after the last 3 debates - PLEASE STAY HOME IN NOVEMBER.
...At least we'd all feel better knowing that you won't be voting for McCain...
Yvette
Sorry I don't go with the my party right or wrong thing. I am a Dem because I believe they are right, the second I think they are wrong my money and my votes stop. If Hillary can win more pledged delegates, fair and square, I will vote for her. If she uses the super delegates to overrule the voice of the people, then I am afraid the party will have left me behind.
Gore, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and some others may have been holding out so they will be able to exert the force that may be necessary so this thing doesn't have to resolved in Denver. 'Cause if it goes to Denver it's gonna' be ugly.
I can't wait! I want it to go to the convention, best thing that could happen!!
Whatever happens, the next pesident will not be a born again Christian. That alone is reason to celebrate.
Nice post and that type of post will really win votes and win the hearts and minds of people all over the USA -- what a grand representation of the party.
Yes. The Democrats really are about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. After this is over, Hillary Clinton will have burned bridges that cannot be repaired. Whether she wins or not.
The same can be said about Obama who has managed to split the Dem party, regardless of his self-labeled status as a uniter.
You really can't see the difference, can you?
Which candidate is running a slash and burn campaign, insulting the other candidate and his supporters?
What exactly is Obama doing to split the party in your humble opinion, other than say asking people to vote for him? I mean, I get that opposing Her Majesty's coronation drives some of you nuts, but at least he's not destroying her for the general.
Doesn't matter, this ends this week, even if she doesn't get the memo.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
