Maybe a Drawn-Out Dem Race is a Good Thing
| Wed Feb. 6, 2008 10:49 AM PST
I've been saying for quite some time that the long, drawn-out race that the Democratic candidates apparently have in front of them is bad for their long-term prospects: McCain will have all the time he needs to unify the Republicans, raise money, hone his message, and rest up, all while the Democrats are bashing each other over the head.
But Brad Plumer at TNR has the opposite take:
Advertisement
Advertisement
...the absence of a clear Democratic opponent would make it much harder for McCain to start attacking (back in 2004, the GOP was able to coalesce around the Kerry flip-flopping meme early on, which gave it time to sink in). Meanwhile, it seems that as long as the Democratic nomination is up in the air, dissatisfied conservatives are more likely to spend time airing their grievances with McCain than training their fire on his opponent.
Clinton and Obama would also have time to sharpen their message on the economy, in a debate waged largely on their terms—McCain's ability to change the subject here would be minimal.
Yes and no. Those dissatisfied conservatives who hate McCain will probably stop jabbing him every chance they get once it's clear that there are no other alternatives. And at that point the Republicans will probably just start attacking both Obama and Clinton. In fact, they'll probably attack strategically, trying to bolster the candidate they think would make the weaker nominee. We'll have weeks, perhaps months, of media/blogosphere guesswork about the ulterior motives of Karl Rove's latest op-ed.
But Brad's right that as Clinton and Obama debate one another, their messages seem to be getting out and excitement seems to be growing. Democrats across the country are stoked that they have two legit candidates to choose from; keeping that enthusiasm alive for a while longer so that the folks in Louisiana, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Ohio can experience it isn't a bad thing.
Comments
Submitted by Monte Asbury (not verified) on Wed Feb. 6, 2008 11:50 AM PST.
I believe Obama has yet to make his message clear. While he and Hillary are not too different in policy analysis, they are poles apart in philosophy of government, and the implications are huge. Her message is "I am ready to lead;" his message is "You can change America." She is top-down, he is bottom-up. He offers a radical departure from politics-as-usual, for transparency and citizen involvement in policy making are natural results. She pitches her policies; he is pitching bringing the best minds together to think of approaches no one has yet envisioned.
It will hurt the Dem Party because Race is going to come up more and more.
When 80% of Blacks vote for Obama, you can bet that some folks are going to notice, as it is obvious it is based on his Race. And 60% of Hispanics voting for Clinton? All of this will be played up more and more as time goes on.
Yep, Race is going to rear it's ugly head before this is all over.
I don't quite understand why some people are offended because African Americans 80 % voted for Obama. Why is it that for years African Americans have voted for White People and nothing was said? Black people are now voting for the best Democratic Candidate for change. Stop trying to divide us. Obama is trying to bring all people together. You white people need to stop this nonsense!
Submitted by Eric Ferguson (not verified) on Thu Feb. 7, 2008 2:27 PM PST.
"We'll have weeks, perhaps months, of media/blogosphere guesswork about the ulterior motives of Karl Rove's latest op-ed."
There are fair attacks on Obama and Clinton, and unfair attacks. Rather than obsessing over what Rove or anyone in the GOP wants, look at the sources. What we read here in Mother Jones is probably trustworthy. What we see in The Weekly Standard is probably a lie. Try to get past it and figure out who who really want.
Besides, sometimes primary campaigns do have the benefit of improving the candidates. Sometimes, though they spend money, they learn how to spend it and how to fundraise. They get to find the holes in their arguments and how to find the holes in the opponent's arguments. They get more press, which helps the winner's name recognition. We just have to be mature enough not to demonize the other side so we're not too divided for the general election. Yes I know, no guarantee of maturity.
I agree with Jonathan that the general take from lots of Dems is that either choice on our side has viability. I moved my support from Edwards to Obama but will not consider Hillary dog food by any stretch of the imagination. While their ideological approaches are different, I think they both have core Democratic values. Obama's just seem a little more Progressive driven and less Party driven, a welcome if subtle nuance. Parenthetically, I thought the speech Michelle Obama gave last Saturday night was vivid, human and really exciting to watch.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
