Are Democrats About to Snatch Defeat From the Jaws of Victory?

Conventional wisdom says that '08 will be a Democratic year. A sinking economy, a disastrous war, Katrina, a loony/incompetent Republican president, and a disgruntled and hurting population indicate that we should see a Democratic congress and a Democratic president coming out of the next election. Add to this the fact that we have three forward-thinking Democratic candidates who agree in principle on most issues and seem to understand the needs and concerns of the American people. Yet I am truly frightened that a Democratic victory might not be the case.

Some of this concern comes from my own small sampling of opinion, based upon reader reaction to my blogs and others here on the Huffington Post. When anyone dares to suggest that we should demand specifics from our candidates, that one cannot lead with rhetoric alone; that we should require practical policy statements, and most of all that this should not be a beauty contest but a contest of ideas, this is taken as an attack upon Barack Obama, and the writers are accused of being spokesmen for a nefarious Hillary Clinton. Now Mrs. Clinton is a candidate I regard as a mixed bag of virtues and faults based upon her own past record, although I now view the virtues as outweighing the faults. The anger that should have been expressed against the disastrous governance of Bush and the six years of his tagalong Republican Congress has turned inward, against those in the party who do not support a particular candidate of choice, in this case Barack Obama. This may well lead to the election of a John McCain. The angry comments coming from some Obama supporters is in direct contradiction to the idealistic vision of their candidate. His candidacy of change, pledging to bring Americans together has a downside that is very troubling. It seems to evoke the opposite feeling in many of his supporters should one fail to be captivated by their candidate. Conversely, the attack upon Obama's youthful misadventures by misguided Clinton operatives is equally disturbing in its attempt to sully the reputation of a decent and caring man. And the marginalizing of John Edwards as a "loser" by other partisans keeps his message of true reform from being heard.

The Republicans are greedy, narcissistic, and rigid, but they are not stupid. They want to win. The candidacy of a John McCain that attracts independent voters to it will be their ticket to another four years in the White House. The McCain who would not capitulate to the Viet Cong is now the McCain who has so easily capitulated to the religious right, ambition being a greater incentive to change than torture. This McCain supports a century more of American occupation of Iraq. For all his failings this McCain remains a real charmer for many -- despite age and past history -- and he may fill the vacuum that Democrats are creating with their own divisiveness. Indeed, a President McCain will be filling the vacancies of the Supreme Court with another batch of right wing ideologues, condemning America to generations of conservative ideology determining the law of the land for all our sons, daughters, and grand-children.

We are setting ourselves up for a situation in which a Clinton candidacy may well lose the support of the African-American vote, a necessary Democratic vote, a vote that may be embittered by the failure of Obama to gain the nomination from the Democratic Party. Racism will be charged for the loss, rather than Obama's inexperience. Code words will be found where none were intended. It is possible that many African-American voters and young Obama supporters will stay home. I do not think this will happen if Clinton loses to Obama. Clinton supporters are less invested in the personality of their candidate. The cult of personality is something I find dangerous. It gave us the bad Huey Long, and the good FDR, both of whom were both hated and revered. If truth be told, there is far less fanaticism in the Clinton camp, even among so-called old line feminists. So here's the tragic setup. Obama wins the nomination and the Clinton voters will give him the benefit of their doubts and vote for him. Clinton wins and the Obama voters stay home crying conspiracy. The Democrats lose and John McCain nominates Orrin Hatch to the next vacancy in the court issuing in three more decades of backward-looking policies in matters of race and civil liberties, joining his buddy Clarence Thomas on the bench. This is the time for Democrats to tone down the angry rhetoric and think of the future.

Comments

[Merum]

Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? How is this possible, when the Democratic Party doesn't exist anymore?

There's only a loosely aligned group of factions who identify with some of the platform, but really just wants to advance their own goals, without regard to what's really needed.

There's the "Fashion Democrats", they claim to want change, but really don't. They don't want their world shaken up. They like their McMansion, their minivan, their Blue Cross card. They get all their information from the MSM, and like to sound "smart" on the issues at their dinner parties. They'll vote for a candidate because they're black, or because they're a woman, but they certainly don't care about change.

There"s the "Not Republican" Democrats, who have simply latched onto whichever mainstream candidate has more charisma and more closely aligns to their identity, because they "don"t have time to read all that stuff, but don"t want a Republican again".

Then there are the voters who pay attention to the issues. The voters who don"t give a damn about "electability" or "realistic" because they vote their mind.

I see people who say to start looking for "code words" now that the primary race is getting "ugly". It was ugly from the start, and the code words have been there all along. Want to hear some of them?

"Affordable." This is code for you will still have to BUY your health care from a large, private insurance corporation, because that"s what their corporate masters will allow.

"Realistic." This is code for "This is what will be allowed by our corporate masters."

"Electable." What the candidates and pundits say when they want to tell you that they or their candidate is receiving enough corporate money to buy the election.

"Populist." What pundits say about candidates who care about candidates who really want change. The ones who get no corporate money. Note how much it sounds like "communist". Thats the way they spit it out.

The Democratic Party died a long time ago. Rest in Peace.

[JackWOrf]

1. I don't understand why people, including Hillary, keep talking about "Hillary" as the candidate. The candidate is BILL. Hillary is a human loophole.

I plan to vote for Hillary, but the ONLY reason that I am voting for her is because I am voting for BILL. Bill was extremely good with the economy, which may be critical in the coming years.

That is where, of course, "experience" resounds. Hillary herself has little experience. But Bill has humongous experience.

My advice to Hillary:
1. Get rid of the posters that say "HILLARY". Replace them with ones that say "CLINTON".

2. Get Bill to accompany you EVERYWHERE. He should be in attendance at every appearance, but silent. And penitent.

Hillary as an INDIVIDUAL has blown it (excuse the pun) by crying. Presidents don't cry. However, in her case, she is with BILL, so she can be weak, because BILL is there to be strong.

3. I think that the best approach is "Team Clinton". This is like Jesus and the Virgin Mary in Catholicism. Bill can be there to be strong and protective, the Holy Virgin Hillary can be there to cry tears of compassion for the world's sorrows.

This makes them an ENORMOUSLY effective team, IF they can be a team. IF they can get past her EGO. She needs to back off and make it CLEAR that Bill is going to be running the show. Or that they at least will be equals.

4. But here's the best part. I think that if Hillary could enlist Obama as her running mate, it would be an invincible ticket. This is also the best thing for Obama.

Obama can't win this election, even if he wins the nomination. But after 8 years as a VP, he would have the stature and experience to make an excellent president.

So a "Team Clinton/Obama" ticket would be an excellent opportunity for 16 years of Democratic rule.

[Cathexis]

The fact is that ANY of the current Democratic slate would be a fairly decent (or even good) president. I'd have no problem supporting Edwards, Clinton, or Obama in a general election. And, let's face it, your absolute LAST choice among the Dems is still WAY better than the best options among the current Republican field.

I agree with the author: Let's remember not to let the (relatively) small differences between teh candidates fester into something that poisons the chances of whomever the ultimate Dem candidate is.

[guru75]

The argument that Obama should have made in his dustup over MLK and LBJ's role in passing civil rights legistlation was that he, Obama, would provide both the MLK idealism, and the LBJ knowhow - instead he and his wife turned it into a racial issue with a false accusation against Hillary Clinton. Okay, it was a mistake, and not a fatal one. We hope that everyone learns that racial politics is a pernicious game where everyone is the loser.

[elleng]

Naturally; Dems do it as easily as falling off a log.

Last time they accepted a media blackout of Wes Clark, who would not have tolerated the games played in Ohio+. This time they seemed to tolerate, if not encourage, black outs of highly capable candidates Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, leaving us with media-created controversial candidates, continuing controversy, and headaches as far as the eye can see.

Here we go, again.

[wiseapple]

America is an amazing country, and the democratic party is the only party capable of getting us back on the right course. As a party, we have arrived at a point where a woman and a black man are running, and leading, in the nominating process-quite remarkable in itself. There is definitely hope for this country and this is proof!
Unfortunately, I find too much unease at the prospect of either getting the nomination. Whether it be timing or circumstance, there is something wrong. Mrs. Clinton is a good, solid person; but for too much of the electorate there is a negativity factor greater than Avogadro's number. She will always be tied to eight years of decent prosperity, but more baggage than ... I mean, who wants to have all that stirred up again- I'm tired! Senator Obama is a bright star on the horizon. I think there is more progressive in him than his strategists are allowing him. He is being groomed to the point of marginalization because that is his best chance of getting votes. In other words, he is not ready to be himself and win. I think he would be the best vice-presidential candidate where the experience factor and any Bradley factor disappears by the 2012 or 2016 election cycle. That would be just what this country needs- 16 years of democratic leadership to transition back to a respected, progressive world power.
Since the more experienced candidates have chosen not to continue, Edwards seems the most viable and definitive choice. He appears full of the youthful exuberance and idealism needed to challenge the established intransigents, be himself and win over voters- in other words, he's not afraid to speak his mind!
I hope enough fellow democrats see things the same way, or we could be in for a lousy surprise come November.

[Tellmethetruth]

I agree with you. I had intended to vote Democrat until I began to read Huffington Post's blogs and the blind support of Obama without thinking, just hate filled anti-Clinton reactionary blogging that uses sexist language.

I started to listen to the Republican debates - they are equally bitter with Romney in the pack. But, Huckabee is likeable and accused of being liberal as is McCain who is experienced and putting forth ideas on energy that is pallable to independents. McCain is a west coast Republican which means he is a liberal Republican not a neo-con. The problem is he wouldn't hesitate to send more troups into battle and is big on the military as a solution.

Obama verus McCain - I would probably vote for McCain. If Clinton or Edwards, I would vote Democrat.

Obama versus Huckabee - I would vote for Huckabee - If Clinton or Edwards, I would vote Democrat.

Sorry, but Obama supporters are a total turn-off on these blogs - full of hatred towards women, and Obama is not ready to be President. I for one can wait 10 years or longer to see if he is capable of accomplishing anything, or if he is just words only as I largely suspect. Right now, he's just a disaster and the world is too scary to let someone so immature and inexperienced be the President.

[Mike5000]

In head to head polls against Repug candidates, Edwards does best, with Obama close behind and Clinton trailing badly. For progressives, John Edwards' policies are the next best thing to Kucinich. And he's the most electable candidate in the race.

The corporate media desperately doesn't want you to know this.

In head-to-head polls, the only way a Repug can win is if the general election is McCain v Clinton. Surprise! That's precisely what the corporate media is trying to engineer.

[Nutcase]

With all of the negatives that Hillary carries among Democrats, how will she attract Republicans and independents? Can anyone imagine Obama debating security with McCain, even if he's right? McCain, with his blustering style and presumed experience will eat him alive.

Edwards is the only Democrat remaining in the race who can forestall a Republican win.

[abt]

The Clinton Campaign started this divisiveness, period, by:
- Sending out a mailer in NH that lied about Obama's position on abortion rights.
- Sending out Mark Penn on Hardball to mention "cocaine" and Obama in the same sentence as many times as he could.
- Sending out Bob Kerrey to say Obama's middle name is Hussein, he was raised as a Moslem, his ancestors are Moslems, etc.
- Sending out Bob Johnson yesterday to allude strongly to Obama's youthful drug use.
Please give me a break. Sen. Obama is trying to take the high road. I supported Sen. Clinton until her vote for Kyl-Lieberman. After this latest round of gutter politics - if it's Clinton vs. McCain, I will definitely have to do some thinking, and I'm not alone. The Democrats will be making a huge mistake if they nominate Hillary.

[rblackbird]

Hillary Clinton did not make a racist remark demeaning Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hillary fairly criticized Obama for lacking experience to put his words into action. Obama responded saying inspiring words have brought about change , and referred to Dr. King. Hillary pointed out that Dr. King still needed a president to encase his dreams in a powerful national law, which is true.

The book Judgement Days by Nicholas Kotz details the close working relationship Dr. King and Lyndon Johnson developed to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

We Democrats have stood by the civil rights acts despite the political losses. No regrets. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been at the head of the effort to achieve equality, economic justice, and racial harmony in our time. What Hillary said about Johnson was historically true and never doubted by Dr. King.

Some of Obama's hypersensitive supporters answer legitimate questions raised about his themes and record with the defamation that his critics are racist. This is getting real old, real fast. The Republican wolves are at the door, and we do not have time for this absurdity.

Obama and his supporters have deliberately misunderstood and misconstrued the comments of the Clintons to gain transitory political advantage. They completely disregard that these tactics cause lasting damage to our candidates and to our party's unity.

[Anahid]

One Caucus, and one primary, and Edwards is already written off. What a democracy.

[Bladernr1001]

Answer to the question in the title of your piece.....YES

[taikan]

By eliminating the most qualified candidates (Richardson and Biden) from the race early on, the Democrats indeed appear to be poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
However, although you are correct that a Republican victory will result in more bad appointments to the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, you needn't worry that McCain or any other Republican president will appoint Orrin Hatch to the Court. He's too old. During the Reagan regime, the Republicans developed the strategy of appointing primarily younger conservatives to the U.S. Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court. One of the first such appointees was Alex Kozinski, now the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, who became an appellate judge in 1985 at the age of 35. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are more recent examples of this strategy. By appointing relatively young conservatives to federal appellate courts, the Republicans are trying to make sure that their views will continue to prevail in the courts not only for the 30+ years these individuals can be expected to remain on the bench, but also for however much longer it takes for their many precedential decisions to be reversed.

[peterg76]

"Are Democrats About to Snatch Defeat From the Jaws of Victory?"

Rhetorical question, right?