"The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters...
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again...
I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.
For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.
For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do."
3 comments:
In a way, the "...supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody." is true for me, and possibly plays into the "electable?" quandary.
I'm willing to abandon my right-wing roots for Obama, but would have a lot of psychic angst doing so if it put Bubba anywhere near 1600 Pennsyltucky Ave. again. Never have I seen such a divisive figure and I can't lose my image of the famed, "vast right-wing conspiracy" burst of paranoia from the good senator.
I guess I just can't envisage a non-divisive Clinton presidency. And, like many sick to death of a paralytic government, voting for division would feel like a wasted vote.
I fit the demographics for Obama supporters and suspect he has a good crossover draw (look at the number of extra Demo ballots California needed in their primary). Fund raising capacity may also be indicative of elactability.
Time will tell.
Yeah, this is what I don't get. Apparently when reviewing their records, Obama and Clinton are surprisingly close in how they vote on issues. (I keep reading the numbers 90-93% the same.) For this reason, I don't understand people who say they'd vote for one, but not the other. The alternative of having another Republican in office who favors war(s) and doesn't understand the economy, is FAR more scary than returning to a Clinton presidency.
Perhaps if regular people were in Congress this would play out the way I think Obama supporters hope - Obama takes office and suddenly all the differences between the two parties seem to disappear and it's this great old party of getting-things-done and reaching-across-the-aisle but I do not believe this is what will actually happen if Obama wins the nomination. I think he will be treated the same as every politician before him.
Also, if Hillary were to clinch the nomination, I don't think she'd have one iota of problem raising cash. From what I can tell, people don't want another Repub in office at this time, particularly one that seems to want to keep in place the failed policies and practices of the current administration.
Interesting contrary view in re: the health care issue and success of management styles from BusinessWeek's blog:
http://tinyurl.com/2rrtk8
Post a Comment