Some Thoughts on Last Night
- 05.07.2008 - 3:11 PM1. Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President. That was clear before yesterday; absent a complete and unforeseen disaster, it’s a certainty now. Democratic superdelegates will soon begin to break in large numbers for Obama. They have been wanting to do so for some time now; what they needed was a plausible trigger to justify publicly supporting Obama. Last night they got it. Yesterday in the voting booths of North Carolina, the last dog died.
The Clintons have done a lot of damage to our politics over the years, something which Obama tapped into with great skill. They have destroyed a lot of folks who they viewed as obstacles to their power, and so it’s good, very good, that they will not be returning to the White House.
2. Whether Hillary Clinton withdraws or not is a far less important question than it was 48 hours ago. She may formally continue in the race, but as last night’s speeches made clear, the rhetorical swords will be sheathed. And there will be a lot of energy spent in the next several days negotiating a graceful exit for Hillary and Bill Clinton. That may not be easy. Many adjectives apply to the Clintons. Graceful is not one of them.
3. Democrats will begin to rally around Obama and, once Hillarydrops out of the race, he will take a large, perhaps even a commanding, lead over John McCain. In the last month there has been some talk among Republicans that Obama will be an exceptionally weak candidate, on the order of a Dukakis (loser of 40 states), Mondale (loser of 49 states), and McGovern (loser of 49 states). That won’t be the case. Obama is far
more talented and appealing than Dukakis, Mondale, or McGovern ever were.
He also has in place one of the finest political operation the Democrats have ever put together. And beyond that, this year — unlike 1972, 1984, and 1988 — virtually every metric favors Democrats, whether we’re talking about fundraising, party identification, the public’s views on an array of issues, and the energy and excitement among base voters. In addition, it’s hard for an incumbent party to win a third term, particularly in an environment in which voters are longing for change, where the President’s popularity is extremely low, and where 80 percent of the country believes the nation is on the wrong track.
A disturbing sign was that last weekend the GOP lost its second House seat in a special election in two months - this time in Louisiana, in a seat that had been Republican for 34 years and one which Bush carried by 20 points in 2004. It’s true that most congressional races are local rather than national in nature and Woody Jenkins was a particularly weak candidate. Nevertheless, the results in Louisiana could be an ominous sign, especially for down-ballot Republicans.
4. What Senator McCain has working in his favor is that he has the greatest potential of any Republican on the national stage to reach beyond his base. That’s especially important in a year when voters are down on the GOP. The challenge for McCain remains his capacity to energize the Republican base while appealing beyond it. That is always the task of a nominee; this year, given McCain’s history with conservatives, it will be harder than most.
Also working in McCain’s favor is that Obama is a completely orthodox liberal in a nation that remains, for the most part, center-right. And Obama’s associations with Reverend Wright, William Ayers, and Tony Rezko have raised questions about his judgment and character. It remains to be seen if, in a general election, these concerns metastasize. One more troubling revelation about Obama’s associations, it could be quite
damaging to him. Hairline fractures can easily turn into complete breaks. And of course if Jeremiah Wright decides to re-emerge and hold forth on the virtues of “black liberation theology” and the vices of America, it could have a shattering effect on the Obama campaign.
5. The other thing McCain has working in his favor is that Obama has shown a limited appeal among rural and blue-collar voters, seniors, Catholics, and Latinos. Hillary Clinton has also done much better than Obama among conservative white Democrats. These demographic groups, and hence states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, are ones McCain has a chance to win. And a state like Florida is one where Hillary Clinton would have been a far more formidable opponent than Obama.
Obama’s strength has been with African Americans; in North Carolina, for example, he won more than 90 percent of the black vote amidst record turnout. He also runs extremely strong among young voters (18-29 years old), highly educated voters, in urban areas, and among elites — voters with high incomes and graduate degrees. Obama also has a realistic chance to carry Rocky Mountain States like Colorado and Nevada.
David Brooks has said that “demography is king” in this election. That has proven mostly true, and when it comes to the general election Obama has shown some worrisome (for Democrats) signs. That doesn’t mean he can’t surmount them, especially in a year that ought to favor Democrats. But it does mean that he is not without vulnerabilities.
6. Obama’s speech last night was a revealing roadmap to what he perceives as his own weaknesses. He ridiculed the notion of using “labels” to describe himself; it is, he has insisted in the past, part of the “old politics” that Obama alone can transcend. But let’s be specific: the label Obama has in mind is “liberal,” and in this instance it fits quite nicely. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Obama is an utterly conventional liberal - arguably the most liberal person running for president since McGovern. Obama has shown no willingness to challenge liberal orthodoxy. What he does not understand, or what he will not admit, is that a person’s political ideology reveals important things not only about his stance on individual issues, but also about his worldview, his assumptions and the beliefs that animate his political activism. In the past, the “liberal” label has been politically lethal for those running for President. Obama understands this - and since he can’t alter his record, he is going to do everything he can to smash the categories.
The man who last October proudly declared that he decided he wouldn’t wear an American flag pin shortly after 9/11 because it “became a substitute for I think true patriotism” last night spoke movingly about the “flag draped over my grandfather’s coffin” and what that flag stands for.
The man whose pastor, close friend and confidant referred to the United States as the “U.S. of K.K.K.” and whose wife declared our country to be “downright mean” and who has for the first time in her adult life found reason to be proud of America spoke glowingly about “the America I know.” Obama added this: “That’s why I’m in this race. I love this country too much to see it divided and distracted at this moment in history. I believe in our ability to perfect this union because it’s the only reason I’m standing here today. And I know the promise of America because I have lived it.”
The man who in San Francisco talked about the bitterness of small-town Americans who “cling” to their religion and guns and xenophobia, told us about the “simple truth I learned all those years ago when I worked in the shadows of a shuttered steel mill on the South Side of Chicago.”
The man who believes the Iraq war is irredeemably lost and wants to withdraw all major combat troops within 16 months — which would lead to a devastating American defeat, mass death and possibly genocide, a resurgent al Qaeda and a strengthened Iran - said, “I trust the American people to recognize that it’s not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after al Qaeda’s leaders.”
The man who in the first year of his presidency wants to meet individually and without preconditions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea declared last night, “I trust the American people to understand that it’s not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies - like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.” (The notion that Obama is in the same foreign policy tradition as FDR, JFK, and Truman is not a serious one; he is far closer to McGovern’s appeal to “Come Home, America.”)
Obama’s speech, then, was an effort to pivot to the general election and reposition himself as a post-partisan, post-ideological, mainstream, and unifying figure. That effort was fairly effective for a while. But the Obama magic is fading fast. As he showed last night, he remains an appealing figure. He is still able to make high-minded (if largely empty) appeals. Yet many of us, having watched him closely over the last few months, hear him differently than we once did. The words are largely the same; it’s the man delivering them who somehow seems different.
Barack Obama is still the favorite to be the next President. But he’s a good deal weaker than he was, and a long and withering campaign lies ahead.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
May 7th, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Excellent work. Excellent.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:56 PM
One point that I think has been omitted is how critical the VP nominations will be this year. Critical in McCain’s case because of his age and uneasy-relationship with partisan-Republican activists, as well as non-partisan conservatives. Critical in Obama’s case becuase of his inexperience and the gaping chasm that separates him (politically, philosophically, culturally) from Middle America.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Much of this is shrewdly perceptive, but I remain one conservative who is baffled by the ongoing demonization of the Clintons. It was a handy tool for the right in 1992, when the supposed Republican lock on the White House was rudely picked by a liberal Democrat. But I always thought the anti-Clinton forces were far more ruthless than the Clintons themselves, who seemed like Goody Two Shoes neoliberals stunned by the ferocity unleashed against them. Nerdy, clueless, narcissistic in the classic boomer manner? Yes, yes, yes. But hardly the demonic force that the Bartleys, Tyrrells, Hydes and, yes, Starrs of the time seemed to fear.
The creepy cult that surrounds Obama views practically any political opposition to their savior as Satanic and racist; naturally, they have adopted this Van Helsing view of his chief Democratic rivals. But to step back and take an adult view for a moment: what, realistically, is so devilish about the Clintons? What “folks” have they “destroyed?” What makes them the slightest bit worse than any ambitious politician - including Barack Obama and George W. Bush?
May 7th, 2008 at 4:19 PM
What “folks” have they “destroyed?”—
For starters, any number of women who called attention to their abuse by Bill.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Perhaps you can enlighten me then with a single name. Having one of your advisors call a woman trailer trash doesn’t count as destroying them, at least in my book; the Clintons themselves were called worse names in the national media then and now. One of the women, Juanita Broaddrick, did accuse Bill Clinton of rape, and of course that’s a terrible crime. But it was never proved in court, and certainly HIllary wasn’t accused of such a thing.
Again, in all honesty, I ask for a single name of someone “destroyed” by the Clintons - not someone they called a bad name, or said something nasty about, or even fired (many presidents fire people, even presidents I like). We conservatives are supposed to be a tough bunch, not subscribing the politics of victimhood - when we say destroyed, we should mean DESTROYED. Who?
May 7th, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Monica Lewinsky was destroyed. First, she was asked to put together a false affidavit. Then she was called a stalker. Had Bill Clinton simply stood up and said yes this happened she would not be a household name and there would be no Starr report on the matter. If not for the stained dress not only would she be shamed but also treated as a liar forever. “that women, Monica Lewinsky.”
Ken Starr was “destroyed” as a public servant for telling the truth and doing his job. A one time short lister for the Supreme Court and one of the most decent men in public service was endlessly defamed and now blackballed.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:02 PM
“when we say destroyed, we should mean DESTROYED.”
Well, I suppose we could plunge into a long discussion about the semantics of the word destroyed, but for my part I will agree the word might be more accurately replaced by “smeared” (Jones), “used” (Lewinsky), “persecuted” (Tripp), “intimidated” (Willey), and, as BigM partially admits, “raped” (Broaddrick).
I never thought of the Clintons as a “demonic force” and do not think that the Bartleys, Tyrrells, Hydes, and Starrs of the time sought to portray them that way. I do think those four men– among many others– perceived the Clintons as exceptionally ruthless and dishonest people, for whom truth and falsity were interchangeable tools, to be used as weapons against anyone who got in their way. I agreed with that perception, both then and now, and applaud the Bartleys et al. for their efforts to educate the public, even in the face of extreme and personal vilification by the Clintons, their enablers, enforcers, and other partisans.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Don’t agree that Obama is the favorite, don’t agree that macro factors like party ID or money or historical patterns really have any bearing. Obama’s political vulnerabilities are massive, and seem to be constantly growing and diversifying. The electoral map and demographic and political realities make Obama a very challenged underdog.
Continue to be puzzled and amazed that anyone could find Obama talented, except in the most limited and empty sense of having a good radio voice and a decent though not extraordinary presence. He’s got the heft of a dim, junior congressman when he attempts to deal with any issue of substance. Extremely unimpressive.
One of the most important questions is will what now passes for a “press” in the US manage to get through an entire presidential campaign without asking one of the candidates any serious questions, as they have so far. The jaw-dropping performance of the media in 2004 will probably be surpassed this time around, hard as that is to imagine.
On the Right is, uh, right - the VP choice, at least on the GOP side, is unusually important. There doubtless will be some (many?) McCain voters among the majority that puts him in office doing so with the conscious hope and expectation that he won’t serve out his full term, and thus the No. 2 slot will be critical.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:42 PM
The public has only just begun to scrutinize the annointed one. He’s gotten as far as he has because the public has only seen the phony image he projects. That’s about to change. The McCain camp wont allow him to get away with anymore. Neither will the blogosphere, talk radio or Fox News. McCain will destroy Obama in open debate.
The electoral college favors McCain, and the vocal minority who skew polls and news media reports cant change that. Neither can fraudulent polls. I don’t think there are enough racist Blacks, naive kids and politically correct moonbats out there to put Obama in office. Nobody else supports him.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Regarding the Clintons, except for the Broaddrick matter - again, never proved or even prosecuted - these things all seem to me politics as usual, not particularly worse than what the Bush people have done to McCain during the 2000 campaign and to some of the people who quit the administration and criticized it. And whatever you say about the massive hate campaign the left unleashed against Bush, they didn’t have him impeached, which I’m convinced will seem insanely over the top when the history of the Clinton years is written. And let’s not even get into the wild-eyed conspiracy theories about Mena Airport and Vince Foster.
What always irritated me about the Clintons were that they seemed ineffectual and amateurish, unable to keep their own party in line and given to lies that were easily exposed. Hillary’s health care plan was massively overcomplicated and probably impractical, among other things, but when its critics made some ridiculous accusations against it (remember when Betsy McCaughey, who rode it to political fame for about ten minutes, accused the Democrats of trying to push everyone into HMOs?), I was stunned how inept the administration was about defending it.
When Bush II began, people like Rumsfeld, Powell and Cheney seemed to banish the student-council-president ineptitude of the Clinton years, just in time for 9/11. Alas, the specter of incompetence proved to be down but most assuredly not out.