Coming into this presidential primary season, Democrats in Pennsylvania (April 22) and North Carolina (May 6) had no reason to think that their late-in-the-calendar elections would do anything more than ratify the candidate that voters in earlier states had selected, but now even South Dakota and New Mexico (June 3) will apparently have a voice in these proceedings.
Absent an unrecoverable revelation (Anyone remember a yacht named Monkey Business?), even big margins by either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in all the remaining contests will not apparently be enough to convince the other to concede. This is troubling to many Democrats because GOP-nominee John McCain gets to rest, raise money and lob grenades -- as well as benefit from his rivals’ interparty grenades -- while this fight continues, conceivably all the way to the convention in Denver during the last week in August.
Most Democrats agree, I think, that it is of paramount importance that the incumbent party be evicted from the White House, and Democrats were able to select from a strong field of candidates, of which several would have been solid choices to carry the mantle in November. Of the duo remaining, I believe that Sen. Obama is the better candidate, and I am convinced -- not only for the good of the party, but for the good of the nation -- that voters whose primaries have yet to take place and superdelegates who have yet to make a decision should rally behind him sooner rather than later.
First, in most national polls, Obama has the edge over McCain, while the Arizona senator tops Clinton. If we are adamant that winning the general election is the top priority, then we need to select that candidate who can do that. An Obama candidacy gives him an advantage on a number of issues against McCain, most notably Iraq. Also, Obama’s youth, eloquence and charisma will set him apart from McCain, who is 71 years old and not a smooth public speaker or magnetic figure. Clinton’s strengths against Obama -- experience and knowledge of security issues -- are weaknesses against McCain, and her vote to authorize force in Iraq makes the contrast on that issue less visible. It has been said that she is a polarizing figure, and it’s true. Conservative columnist David Brooks said that every Republican he has spoken with would rather run against Clinton than Obama, and with good reason.
Second, Obama brings new people to the party. He has demonstrated an ability to get young people, African Americans and unenrolled voters to come out to cast their ballot for him. Democrats need these groups to turn out in force in November. He’s also been able to motivate people to the point where they will give money -- and lots of it. For the first time that I remember, Democrats are able to generate more contributions than Republicans, and the amounts are staggering. While Clinton raised an impressive $35 million in February, Obama surged well beyond that figure, collecting $55 million. Unfortunately, that type of money may be needed to beat the GOP, which will close ranks and open wallets for McCain in the coming months.
Third, Obama leads the delegate count and it will be difficult for Clinton to catch him via pledged delegates in the remaining primaries. It also seems less likely that she will have enough of an edge among superdelegates to move ahead, but even if that were possible I don't think we want party insiders to step in and reverse the will of the people. A coup such as that -- or one involving legal proceedings and backroom machinations in regards to the seating of banished delegates from the states of Florida and Michigan -- could throw the party into chaos and poison the waters nationally.
Clinton supporters advocate “the big-state argument.” She’s won primaries in the country’s most-populous states -- California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Florida -- and all of these are states that the Democratic Party needs to win in November. I don’t think this line of reasoning holds water. California, New York, Illinois and Michigan are going to go Democratic in November no matter what. Ohio and Florida have been swing states, but with the current political climate I think they are the Democrats to lose (and in the case of Florida, that might just happen because of the controversial stripping of the state’s delegates). In fact, Texas may even be in play this time around (and if Democrats take the Lone Star State the winds of change really are blowing across the landscape).
No comments:
Post a Comment