I can't sit idly by any longer. After months of being courted by all sides, being told that I should remain neutral for the sake of party unity, and despite last-minute pleas from a certain candidate's indignant spouse, I'm finally ready to hop off the proverbial fence. Conventional wisdom held that there were three brass rings yet to be grabbed by the Democratic campaigns: Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and "that dude that sometimes blogs on that one website run by that ex-conservative lady with the accent." I just assume they mean me. So Ted and I talked, and we decided that if Al was going to pipe up, he'd need the other two members of the triumvirate to pave the way. I told Ted that I was willing to take one for the team, and that I'd wait 24 hours so as not to steal the media cycle away from him. Time's up, buddy, and here goes...
I'm for Obama for all the reasons that my pal Ted points out, but just as importantly, because of the fundamental electoral advantages that Barack Obama holds over Hillary Clinton, and would also hold over his Republican challenger in the general election. Let's take a look.
1. Hillary's support, while still larger than Obama's at the moment, has likely peaked. There's no potential voter not already familiar with Senator Clinton. Her name-recognition and its built-in advantage is a thing of envy for all her challengers, but here's the thing: while Clinton's support is near or slightly above where it was over a year ago, Obama's base of support has grown steadily as he becomes more and more familiar to the electorate. Obama keeps trending upward, while Clinton has hit a ceiling.
2. To use an economist's turn of phrase, Obama increases the size of the electoral pie, whereas Hillary's pie isn't getting any bigger. This phenomenon was seen dramatically in South Carolina this past weekend. Democratic turnout was so far off the charts precisely because voters who were otherwise apathetic or disinclined to participate in electoral politics finally came out in droves. In South Carolina, it was African Americans; in Iowa, it was the youth and independents. By bringing new voters to the table in the primaries (as he doubtlessly would in the general election), Obama has the potential to capture hundreds of thousands more votes than other candidates. His domination in South Carolina was so total that he not only easily defeated his Democratic rivals, but the Republican candidates as well, garnering more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined. The total Democratic turnout (more than 530,000 voters) was head and shoulders above the GOP's (440,000+ voters). With increase-the-pie electoral math like this, Obama has the unique power to put traditional GOP strongholds in play, turning red states blue (although in his unitive magnanimity, he might say purple). And in the game of presidential electoral economics, where the battles are fought on the margins (think Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin), the advantage is Obama's.
3. Perhaps Clinton's greatest potential problem for the general election--particularly against John McCain, who has improbably, and probably much to the horror of the Clintons, emerged as the frontrunner--has been her inability to bring independent voters into her camp. While both Clinton and Karl Rove have argued that Obama's record is more liberal than hers, Obama remains the candidate of bipartisanship who is best suited to capture the centrist vote. In fact, 82% of Republicans (and 54% of all voters) view Clinton as politically liberal, while only 65% of GOP voters see either Obama (47% of all voters) or Edwards (42% of all voters) as politically liberal. What makes this all the more ironic is that Clinton had consciously staked out moderate positions long in advance of her presidential run, for what cynics (probably correctly) adduced were calculated moves to help position her as a stronger (read "less liberal") general election candidate (after what was to be a cakewalk of a primary). Now, however, even after positioning herself as the most hawkish of the Democratic candidates (the DLC's choice, if you will), she finds herself so unable to attract independents that many pundits believe that Michael Bloomberg would see an opening for his centrist candidacy only if Clinton were to become the nominee, but not if it were Obama.
4. Clinton's campaign, as much as she has tried to wrest the "change" mantel from Obama, is about the restoration of bygone era, the 1990s--sure, perhaps an era preferable to that of the current administration, but not one which fulfills the potential of what the Democratic party can become (an ever-expanding majority) in the next twenty years. Obama's campaign on the other hand is about revolution, building a Democratic party for the future by tapping into yet unexploited political will. One model will preserve the Democratic party as it now exists, whereas the other is a growth paradigm. The former is Clinton's, the latter Obama's.
5. Finally, without exception, every friend, acquaintance, and co-worker of mine who is a Clinton backer has told me that he or she would support Obama (often actively) if he became the nominee. The opposite, however, is not close to true. As much as it frustrates me to imagine moderate friends of mine casting a vote for a GOP candidate who would extend and elaborate upon many of Bush's polices, a startling number of them would pledge their votes to McCain, Bloomberg, or reruns of Seinfeld on November 4, 2008, rather than hold their nose and vote for Clinton. Whether this is mere bluster and insincere threat, I can't say. But what's clear is that these current Obama supporters will not be marching head held high into Clinton's camp.
This election season, pundits have hedged their near-unanimous prognostication that a Democrat would assume the reins in 2009 with variations on what's become a self-deprecating, yet often self-fulfilling theme: "If anyone could possibly lose this election for themselves, it's the Democrats." If our pick is Clinton, that prophecy may just become reality.
www.savagepolitics.com
Here is an excerpt: “Florida Primary was a very important episode in the drama in which both the Republican and Democrat Parties are unfolding towards the Presidency of the United States. It also dramatically demonstrated the incredible bias that the Media continues to display towards the Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, in spite of all the evidence pointing to his lack of viability. From MSNBC’s Chris Mathews, who openly stated the day before that any Network that decided to report on the Democratic voting results in Florida was proving a “gross†favoritism for Hillary (ironically enough his Network ended up having to cover it nevertheless), to CNN’s pundits, who continuously utilized the exact same rhetoric that the Obama Campaign was spewing to excuse their defeat (â€Beauty Pageant†was their favorite phrase, with all the sexist connotations it implies). All the same, the Florida results in the Democratic side were overwhelmingly favorable to Hillary Clinton, who won a 50% margin, to Obama’s 33%, Edwards’ 14%, and Gravel’s 1%. On the Republican side, it was John McCain who came out victorious with a 36% margin, to Romney’s 31%, Giuliani’s 15%, Huckabee’s 14%, and Paul’s 3%. Let’s discuss each Party’s results and their realistic consequence.
First, we have the very significant victory of John McCain. His candidacy was, from the very start, labeled as a failure due to his unpopularity amongst most “base†Republicans, much of it owed to McCain’s overwhelmingly dubious record on Conservative issues. His notorious tendency to side with multiple (highly despised) Democrats on issues like Immigration, Bush’s Tax Cuts and other measures, have always been enough to marginalize him from even the “moderate wing†within his Party. Still, when the Florida Exit Polls are analyzed, they reflect many unexpected re-alignments in his favor. Evangelical/Born Again Christians voted for John McCain in a 30% margin, in comparison to…†rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=64
Obama has a lot of potential for growth (and the trends are showing that) but conversely, he is more open to potential loss if something happened.
They're sowing doubt in the minds of Democrats who are more interested in winning the election, more than aspiring to achieve progressive change. They know she's damaged goods and there's no way to make her more appealing.That's why Hillary's team keeps saying she's "tested" or "vetted":
It' like the old joke, "this food is poison, but... at least the portions are big."
And fear works well with women. It's a statistical fact. It's one of the reasons Bush won in '04. They started calling them "security moms" instead of the "soccer moms" from Bills generation.
It's Karl Rove's playbook, make no mistake about it.
And that's the real reason Ted Kennedy put his foot down and endorsed Obama, yesterday. Because he's seen what that "playing to everybody's fear" game has done to the party.
If the only thing we stand for is not loosing elections... where's the growth in that?
If the status-quo Democrats don't get on board and seize the moment, they shouldn't expect these millions of new voters to be there for their party in November or in 4 years or in 8 years.
Obama is the Progressive on the stage. Recognize.
Enjoyed your post but now I'm concerned for your safety. Tracy Flick will not be denied and all opponents (voters included) will pay. Al Gore already knows this and wisely is keeping silent.
On your points:
1. Obama may be half-full or half-empty. The idea that he is going to reach a peak of popularity is HIGHLY dubious. Once he is nominated, if he is nominated, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy will kick in and turn him into hamburger meat.
They are currently directing their full force at Hillary for only one reason: She is electable and Obama is not. That is why they want Obama nominated.
If Obama and his people are outraged by Clinton's "racism", wait until they see what Rush Limbaugh, Evangelist preachers, the NRA, and the entire Military-Industrial complex start sending his way.
2. His South Carolina win is much-ballyhooed. As the Horrible Racist Bill Clinton pointed out, Jessie Jackson won SC twice. In other words, the huge numbers of blacks in SC like to indulge their egos.
3. As a Florida Democrat, I dislike him. He has participated in the DISENFRANCHISEMENT of Florida Democratic voters, which proves to me that he is a phony. If he believed in freedom he would not be participating in the disenfranchisement.
Said disenfranchisement, of course, has been engineered by fellow black Donna Brazile, and benefits Barak ENORMOUSLY by excluding Hillary's large number of delegates won in Michigan and Florida.
4. I would like to go back to the 1990's very much. Particularly with a recession beginning, we need Bill Clinton's economic brilliance. Those were very good times: A strong economy, millions of new jobs, America ascendent in the world.
What does Obama provide but some empty promises? He is a novice. A rookie.
5. Maybe I'm not your friend, but it is rather unlikely, at this point that I will vote for any Democrat other than Clinton.
In fact, I am so FURIOUS about this DISENFRANCHISEMENT that I might very well vote Republican. I'm not a gambling man. I would rather vote for solid, respectable, candidates like McCain or Romney rather than some sleezy unknown, who will not even count my votes.
Ask yourself if you really want to sign up for four or eight more years of the Clintons in the White House. I don't. I would vote for her over McCain because of the Supreme Court.
This is basically true for some Obama supporters, myself included. Clinton's political posturing was blatantly obvious, and frustrating (and arguably, Obama has done some posturing in the US Senate as well, particularly his voting record on some of the presidential appointments). But Clinton was obviously painting herself as a Lieberman hawk, believing voters wouldn't question her strength. My friends are the same way, and have been following Clinton since before 2000. She seemed like the savior for 2004, but she probably sensed it was too close to Bill's presidency. She should have been more concerned about voters questioning her character. If she was so "vetted," why the hell did she have to vote against the nation's best interests.
Honestly, I believe if women want change, and want a strong woman to represent them, they should consider pushing Sen. Boxer. Honestly, Sen. Boxer is the most competent person I've seen in the senate, and willing to vote with conviction and integrity. Now, I'm an Illinois native, so Californians may know her more intimately, but she appears just as brazen and tough as Hillary is, but she also appears genuine. Being a genuine woman doesn't mean you have to burn your bra and bake cookies at the same time. Being a strong woman is being a strong individual.