The easiest conclusion for a conservative watching the jockeying for the Democratic nomination in '08 is to conclude that Senator Obama is, at best, a spoiler who might touch up Hillary Clinton on her pre-ordained path to the nomination. After all, the Democrats couldn't possibly nominate a guy who was, two years ago, an Illinois state senator? A guy who was, before running for the Senate, and I mean this literally, a socialist? A guy who has done nothing with his life other than get a Harvard education? A guy who's middle name is "Hussein?" And if they did nominate him, he'd lose easily, right?
Let me introduce you to Governor-elect Deval Patrick.
Now, the comparison here is a little unfair. Governor-Elect Patrick actually has some real world experience, although he's not a manager and has never run anything. His middle name is not Hussein or Khomeini or Adolf (that I know of, at least). Patrick ran in Massachusetts, the most Democratic state in the nation. His opponent was particularly weak and it wasn't a good year for Republicans. Nonetheless, Patrick came out of nowhere, said nothing of substance, has a far-left history and won handily. To date, the only stand of substance he's taken (yesterday) was to -- I swear I'm not making this up -- urge the state legislature to ignore the will of the people, the express language of the state constitution and the state supreme court by refusing to authorize a ballot question on gay marriage.
Nevertheless, the essential similarity is there. Both men are Harvard trained (which is almost irrelevant) and, oh yeah, both are charismatic, attractive black men. As a nation, we would love to elect a black president. It would be a gift to ourselves; proof that we've come a long way (baby) and have put our racist past behind us. Nor is this pull only felt by the left; I feel it myself. Combined with our inner fear of being racist, the threshold for voting against Senator Obama would be higher than the threshold for voting against some generic white man (Senator Edwards) and much higher than voting against Senator Clinton, who we know and dislike.
It's that last point that's the kicker -- we know Senator Clinton and thus wouldn't elect her president. As I mentioned before, Senator Obama is a socialist. In order to get elected, in fact, in order to get the Democratic nomination, he has to hide that fact from us. So the key for Senator Obama is to run exactly the same campaign Governor-elect Patrick ran. Run from substance, run on "bringing us all together" and "together we can" and "healing the nation's wounds." In 2004, the Democrats decided to run exactly the kind of milquetoast, speak-no-evil primary that would allow Senator Obama to scoot to victory without anyone challenging him to stake out actual positions. If they decide to do the same thing next year, I don't see any reason why Obama-fever won't sweep the nation.
7 comments:
You can't really run as a cipher for President anymore--the campaign is far too long. We're 22 months away and the campaign is "heating up" as the Obama & Giuliani camps are trying to pre-emptively dump their dirty laundry. Kerry mostly tried to run as a cipher, but his pride and political incompetence derailed him just enough to ruin the strategy.
But the main reason Obama can't run as a nobody and win is that in order to successfully run as an empty-suit you have to be setting yourself up in opposition to someone the electorate knows and doesn't like (see Casey vs Santorum). Since there is not going to be a Bush-Cheney holdover on the ticket, the tactic just won't work. He'd be saying "You don't know me, but I'm sure to be better than John McCain" which isn't going to cut it.
As someone who has actually voted against Senator Obama, I certainly didn't find it the least bit difficult. If I had to choose between him and HRC, I would go with HRC. I think your viewpoint is distorted by living in Massachusetts.
Note also Obama won in Illinois, a state only slightly less favorable to the Democratic Party than Massachusetts and he was running against Alan Keyes, who came off as a loonie carpetbagger (which was quite depressing, as I used to quite fond of Keyes).
I think you're largely right, David. I don't know if Obama will win the nomination or be elected President, but I do think the nation is eager to find a sane black person it can put into the presidency.
A similar phenomenon is the right-blogosphere's fantasy of Condi for president - and she's never run for a single elective office in her life.
And while Republicans get scrutinized down to the last detail, it's not clear that a Dem can't remain a cipher through the election.
If the media provides a shield for Obama, based on his race, he can be a cipher for a long time, possibly even after an inauguration (whereby he could be the Jimmy Carter of 2008). Of course, that will give us a hint of what 2011 might be like.
But the real question for Obama is whether he can shunt aside the screaming radical nutjobs in his party. Yesterday, Rahm Emanuel fled the room rather than tell them to sit down and shut up.
And the interesting story for the Democrats is whether their primary season will be soft and mushy, like 2003/4, or stern and bitter? Last time, only Gephardt and Lieberman (to a small degree) showed any inclination to attack. This time, there are more targets and more ambition on stage. And if Al Gore leaps in, he and Hillary may well have a cage match. Obama doesn't need to play that way, but the others may have to.
PJ: I find it hard to make clear exactly how empty Patrick's campaign was and how frenzied the public reaction. It's true that the Republicans ran a terrible campaign, but even that contains warnings for 08. The Republicans involved themselves in the Democratic primary to help Patrick, because they were sure that the people wouldn't elect a lefty empty suit. I think we definitely could end up underestimating Obama in the same way.
Jim: Obviously this insistence on substance from Obama is simply Republican racism.
Gore ?!
LOL
He has a better shot than do Kerry or Edwards, I suppose, (given that neither of them have ANY possibility of being the '08 nominee), but it's extremely unlikely that he could beat Hill. She'd have to commit enough gaffes to hand it to him, and in any case, Gore is extremely unlikely to be able to beat the eventual GOP nominee. He has too much baggage.
David - I live in Massachusetts too and had something of a sense of it, though I don't pay much attention to state politics. Since the Republican party is moribund and couldn't get a message out if it wanted to, I'm not surprised they didn't attempt an attack strategy.
Patrick seems to be taking a "talk conservative, govern left" approach - extending the modern Dem campaign strategy to a permanent governing tactic. There are rumors one of Patrick's first acts will be clemency for a murderer-rapist. I wonder how long it will be before his approval ratings start to drop, or moderate Dems start to contest Patrick on policy?
Post a Comment