A Divided Democratic Party and a Maverick John McCain
Robert Goidel
Posted: 04.26.2008 / 5:41 PM EDT
In the days since Pennsylvania, the most common refrain I have heard is a fatigue. Democrats are tired of the election that will not end, and they worry that a golden opportunity is slipping (has slipped?) away. Could this election cycle – with a struggling economy and an unpopular war and president - really end with President McCain?
The extended and souring campaign has deepened the divide between the partisan supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. A divide that is more about politics than policy, less about issues than personality and personal style.
Post-debate complaints from the Obama camp aside, this nominating contest has never been about issues. The differences are too small, and the issues can wait for the general election. It is - perhaps ironically - about winning.
An Obama supporter tells me that if Hillary Clinton manages to pull out the nomination, he will support McCain. McCain, after all, would have to face a Democratic Congress. In the long run, this would be better than four years of a divisive Clinton Administration that reignites a dormant (but vast?) Republican right wing.
A Clinton supporter worries that Obama has not yet been fully vetted. The Reverend Wright, William Ayers, none of this will go away. And, what if the worst is yet to come? Even if Obama survives being “swiftboated” by a conservative 527, how would he govern? He is either Adlai Stevenson or Jimmy Carter, but he is not a Democratic Ronald Reagan. And he is certainly not the next JFK or FDR.
Nor is he the next Bill Clinton. Obama himself has made that clear by lumping Bill with the Reagan and Bush (I & II) Administrations in making his case for change.
Unlike Republicans, Democrats don’t honor successful ex-presidents, they distance themselves from them. Even when they served as their vice president. And in doing so, they help Republicans diminish their legacy.
While Democrats deepen their divisions, Republicans have lucked into the one candidate who might be able to win in what should be a good Democratic year. Forget about the surge, the comment about keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years, or concerns about McCain from the Ann Coulter wing of the Republican Party. McCain has a history of speaking out against the Republican Party, was an early critic of the Bush Administration’s mishandling of the Iraq War, and will have strong independent appeal.
As Democrats grow tired of the ongoing fight, it is a trait that may serve him well.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
A Barack supporter who will vote for McCain if Hill gets it?!? How about a life-long dem who is absolutely looking like she will -for the first time in her life, vote for a Republican if/when Obama gets the nom?
If you guessed it must be a white female over forty, then you and all the other infotainers are correct, with one exception: I am not bitter.
What follows is my rationale for pulling the lever on the republican side (assuming Hillary Clinton does not get the nomination nor end-up as VP on the ticket):
1. No way, no how was Barack Obama going to run for pres until he took a look at some startling surveys/polls showing reps were feeling negative about their own for the first time since God only knows how long after the first year or so of the Iraq nightmare.
2. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was telling everyone who would listen she was running in ‘08 since way before 9-11.
3. However you look at it, not one of these three candidates can save the world. Or provide national healthcare. Or stop the war in Iraq from going on and on, and on….
4. However, it can also be said that not one of these three candidates would ever have behaved in the nonchalant, non-caring and out-of-commission way that W did in the Katrina crisis.
5. Ergo, why not back the dark horse of your choice? And if you are me, you might also be a little ****** that your party could not muster the early organization and unity needed to help elect the first female president in American history.
I said ******, not bitter. There is a difference.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Sounds bitter
April 28th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Prof. Goidel, I just sent you an email asking your view on something related to this election and presto, you have answered it here. Regarding Sen McCain, what does history tell us about those President’s with long political histories, are those histories good predictors of Presidential behavior? I don’t know the answer to that.
I think Sen. Obama has the better chance of healing the Dem party after the Convention than Sen Clinton has.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I agree.
I think if Senator Clinton is elected there will be four or eight more years of “foolishness”. During the Clinton administration there was more “foolishness” unrelated to governance. I think history will repeat itself.
Who will suffer? The America public, that’s who. I think HIllary’s campaign shows she is only concerned about herself. She is surprised someone can beat her. She never imagined this would happen; after all those years of preparation. It was not supposed to be like this for Hillary.
I think Obama is the better person who can heal the Democratic Party and the nation.