Death of Reform, Birth of Reform: Clinton Democrats Face the Obama Future

Between 1968-1972, when Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton began their political journey, the Democrats were gripped by a great wave of change, propelled mainly by young people, from the bottom up. The Chicago convention protests were a mirror into this transition. In these pivotal years, young people could not vote and most delegates to the convention were chosen in backrooms by party bosses. By 1972, the so-called McGovern reforms led to the displacement of the old guard and the seating of people like Rev. Jesse Jackson in place of Mayor Daley's cronies. Most important, unlike before, rank-and-file Democrats were empowered to vote for their preferences in presidential primaries.

The Clintons were part of that early wave. Now their hopes for survival may rest on so-called super-delegates, a category of appointed party loyalists which the McGovern reforms failed to erase. The super-delegates are a throwback to the old tradition of a top-down privileged oligarchy maintaining the citadel against the grass-roots, democratically-chosen delegates. They are not necessarily the rich and powerful, though there are plenty of them. Many are like Rachel Binah, mentioned in the New York Times, who is a former radical environmentalist grass-roots California Democrat who worked her way up the party ladder and now receives phone calls from Chelsea and Hillary Clinton soliciting her vote. It's an old style insider trading system, and now threatens to eclipse the reforms achieved starting in the early Seventies. It would be an ugly, contaminated way to seal the final decision in one of the best primary contests ever conducted.

Even uglier will be the establishment claim that Michigan and Florida should count for Clinton even though the Democratic Party ruled against recognizing those state's contests.

If Clinton is chosen by the super-delegates or on the basis of the Michigan/Florida results, I would not be surprised to see hundreds of thousands of young Obama supporters silently circling the Denver convention petitioning the party to recognize their historic achievement.

It may not happen that way. But it could.

Obama is poised to win eight straight primaries in the week since Super Tuesday, with only Virginia a bit uncertain at this point. In their staggering spin, the Clinton forces are denying that these eight states matter in comparison with California and New York. This spin will be challenged when and if Obama wins Wisconsin and Hawaii on the 19th, for ten victories in a row. Coming out of Super Tuesday ahead in 14 states to Clinton's eight (some are still counting), that would mean Obama finishes February with 24 states to eight against the former First Lady and a former president popular with Democrats. The delegate totals in those 24 states are more than Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania combined, and even if the Clintons win in those three big states they still stand to lose in the 14 states remaining. That would mean approximately a 38-11 Obama sweep of the primary states by June, with one unknown at the moment.

Obama needs to fight the media perception, prompted partly by the Clintons, that "it's all over" when the big three states weigh in. That may not be any more accurate than the previous dogma that it would be all over by Super Tuesday.

Obama needs to shore up his defenses in Texas, where he is at a disadvantage. In addition to hitting hard on Iraq, his campaign needs to enlist long- time Texas populists like Jim Hightower (which hasn't happened) and win a significant share of the John Edwards vote along with the modest black vote in order to offset potentially big losses among the state's Latinos. Obama has not yet tied the failure of NAFTA (job loss for Americans, more uprooted immigrants from Mexico) to Clinton's "experience" in the White House. Nor has he spoken of the need for a new good neighbor policy towards Latin America, a whole continent that has rejected the Clinton's "free trade" policies and been ignored during the Iraq war.

In Ohio, Obama needs to win both the anti-war and anti-NAFTA voters (as in Wisconsin) to do well. Pennsylvania, three weeks later, will be shaped by the previous contest, but is a good state for the Clintons. Keep an eye on North Carolina, approaching on May 6, the home state of John Edwards.

By June, Obama needs to be ahead in the total popular vote, the total number of states won, and at least be neck-and-neck in the delegate count. He has to show a significant margin of difference over Clinton in match ups with John McCain. He will have to demand that Howard Dean and the DNC hold firm against the contaminated outcomes in Florida and Michigan.

At some point, perhaps, a pact between the candidates will be possible.

If not, the massive and peaceful pressure for transformation heading into Denver may be unique in the history of American social movements. One generation of reformers, exhausted but still fighting, will have to decide whether power is so important that they are willing to roll over young people no different than themselves three decades ago.#

TOM HAYDEN is the author of Ending the War in Iraq (2007) and The Tom Hayden Reader (2008)

Comments

[jbstonesfan]

Obama isn't power hungry? 2 yrs in the senate and ready to be Prez? I think it's safe to say all politicians who want to win are power hungry-it's only the Clintons, who actually win, who are condemned here for being "power hungry". Hillary has a right to fight as hard as she can to the very end...she is not a quitter.

[ATLiberal]

Let's at least be honest. Yes, Obama is "power hungry" if that is what you call wanting to be elected president. On the other hand, we all have a long, long history with the Clintons and they have long exhibited an unparalleled thirst to be in the White House. Does anyone seriously believe that Ms. Clinton's Senatorship was ever anything more than a stepping stone to the White House??

The fact that Obama realized the mood of the nation and decided this was the right time for him to go for it seems to be the thing that really ticks off the Clintons, who believe it is HRC's "turn. Well, they already had their turn. Just my opinion.

[starboymikey]

Let's at least be honest. Yes, Obama is "power hungry" if that is what you call wanting to be elected president. On the other hand, we all have a long, long history with the Clintons and they have long exhibited an unparalleled thirst to be in the White House.
__________­__________­__________­__________­_

See his whole argument that one or the other is hungry to be in the White House sinks like a dead shark when viewed in the light of what politics is all about. Of course Obama and Clinton both want to be president. If they didn't they either wouldn't be running, or would long ago have been out of the running. In other words, you can't win if you don't want it really bad. I would really love to see both Obama and Clinton partisans stop using the "will do anything to get elected" argument against their opponent.

To me it's not a question of who wants it more, because it's obvious they both want it just as badly. The real issue is who is more capable of taking the presidency away from the Republicans. And God knows, the Republicans love their power enough to do anything to keep it.

[pokester]

Yes, the right is hers to fight.

The right to sidestep the people's votes if her opponent wins more delegates? Perhaps hers, via party mechanism, but at what cost to country, party and people?

[wizoz]

The audacity of these young people, nipping at the heels of Boomer establishment. Move over Hillary.
The Texas "Latino" vote will is the last hurdle for Obama. Both parties have false stereotypes of "Latinos" as immigrant Mexicans. Many are Catholic and Conservative. Many are third generaton or longer AMERICANS. Many own a small business.
Obama needs to address the shared racial prejudice that Blacks and Hispanics face even today. He has to promise a humanitarian solution to the undocumented. Government created the undocumented so business could have exploitable labor.

[mslindab]

Tom, of course you are not just right but you know of what you speak. It is time for us 'boomers' to pass the torch on to a generation that is not so saddled with the pain of our memories. My husband and I don't have chidren but even we have come to the point where we feel we must listen to the enthusiasm of these young people and give them the President they want. The Financial Times has called Obama the candidate the democrats have been waiting for for decades and chides 'what else is there to discuss.' If only the Clintons could see past their own hunger for power so that they could do what is best for their party and our country.

[hopeless277]

Interesting. That last line. Party before country. That's the problem, yes?

[SubparDude]

:
"party and country" does not translate into "party before country."

Unless you are a Clintonista, I guess.
:

[mslindab]

I put 'their' party because I am not a democrat but this time I will vote for a democrat for the first time. I just hope I get the chance.

[FearlessFreep]

Keep repeating: "WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS GOOD FOR AMERICA!"

[ATLiberal]

Come on. This isn't a game of 'gotcha!' A little respect for heartfelt sentiments would be appropriate.