CE Week #3: “Democrats’ unexpected choice”
David S. Broder
The Washington Post
February 10, 2008
When this remarkable political year began, many Democrats were expecting a smooth passage to a historic nomination and a relatively easy presidential victory. That is hardly the case today.
Sen. Hillary Clinton was clearly the established favorite among a large field of challengers, blessed with far more financial and organizational resources than anyone else and the best brand name in Democratic politics.
She was the center of attention, not only for the Democrats but for the Republican candidates as well – the person they expected to face in the general election. As Republican aspirants were struggling to escape the downdraft of the self-immolation that had overtaken President Bush and the GOP Congress, with no assurance that anyone in the group could reassemble the scattered pieces of the Reagan legacy, all of them were focused on Clinton as the final barrier to keeping the White House.
Because the odds seemed so favorable for a Democratic victory in November, eight or nine candidates – with varying degrees of plausibility – decided it was worth the gamble to try to wrest the nomination from Clinton. The conventional wisdom at the start was that someone would emerge to challenge her after the first round of primaries and that she would probably defeat that unnamed opponent.
To everyone’s surprise, the least credentialed of her opponents, young Sen. Barack Obama, turned out to have the personal and political skills that rocketed him past all the others. He beat the field in Iowa, stumbled briefly in New Hampshire and Nevada, recovered in South Carolina and emerged from Super Tuesday almost even with Clinton in delegates and ahead in the race for campaign dollars.
As the next phase of state-by-state contests begins, no one can claim the favorite’s role in a Democratic contest that could go all the way to the national convention.
Meantime, on the Republican side, John McCain has resurrected his candidacy with a series of primary victories from New Hampshire through California, amassing enough delegates that his nomination is assured.
With Mitt Romney’s withdrawal, and only Mike Huckabee, a friendly sparring partner, and the eccentric Ron Paul still running, Republicans can begin to focus on November. Their challenge is still difficult. The war in Iraq remains a heavy burden, its costs outweighing its dividends. The economy has turned down. And public weariness with the White House fuels a desire for change.
Nonetheless, McCain now has the luxury of time in which to mend his differences with some of his fellow conservatives and to pursue the independents whose support would make him a formidable contender.
Where Clinton was the measuring stick for all others in both parties during the past year, McCain now becomes the standard of comparison. As the Democratic race continues, the key question becomes, “Who matches up best against John McCain?”
That will increasingly be a factor for Democratic voters, who find themselves being fragmented on gender, racial and generational lines even in the absence of any serious policy or philosophical differences between the candidates.
And it will be even more central to the deliberations of the almost 800 “superdelegates” – elected and party officials who may represent the balance of power at the convention.
Both Clinton and Obama are now framing their campaigns as a riposte to John McCain. Clinton argues that, given McCain’s authority as a warrior and as a defense expert, her experience and toughness are essential for the Democrats to have a chance.
Obama counters with the claim that it is only by providing the sharpest of contrasts – a generational gap linked to a flat-out denial of the strategic centrality of Iraq – that the Democrats can confront McCain and hope to win.
As I have previously noted, Clinton and McCain come close to matching each other when voters are asked to compare their experience and their ability to bring needed change. But McCain has a huge lead on Obama when voters judge experience, and Obama has a large advantage when it comes to promoting change.
The Democratic contest is more than a battle of personalities. It represents two sharply contrasting strategies for victory in November. The choice is one Democrats never expected to face.
NC – Length & Content
I suppose it really is all up to who would counter John McCain better…
I have to wonder about Obama at this point. I mean sure, change… change can be good, change can be bad, change is inevitable… but in our government, not a lot changes. Should Obama push for the same changes he has been campaigning about, and I do mean all of them, well what then. What if we’re not satisfied with simply that? What has to change. When you get right down to it. Something always has to change…
Looking back over the blog assignments over the summer, reading about crazy Huckabee and his campaign and discussing how we didn’t think he had any sort of shot of making it through any primaries — let alone this close to being the nomination for a running mate for John McCain if not president.
Hillary and Obama have become true competitors fighting for every caucus vote that they get and fighting battles both personally and publicly to win the hearts of American voters. Instead of what we’ve learned about in years past when candidates fought one another in the public eye during the debates or what have you and whoever the third candidate was who stayed out of the bloodbath won we have two candidates who have been fighting with each other all along and they’re the only one’s still left in the race. One would have thought that Edwards could have won since he was the only one who tried to stay out of the huge battles between Obama and Clinton, but alas it was not so and American’s don’t care that they like to fight with each other so much about who would make the strongest candidate to fight against the republican candidate.
Candidates are fighting not for who is best for the job as in years past, or who is best in foreign relations, domestic defense, or even new issues like the environment or global warming; they’re fighting to see who can beat the opposing candidate or for the democrats, who could have a realigning election.
What I’m hearing lately is that a lot of people might not even vote in this election–I’ve heard negativity about all the candidates. People who don’t like Hillary, or Obama, or are just sick of having a Republican in office. ‘Republicans have ruined this country,’ is a phrase that I’ve heard over and over by numerous people of varying age groups. This will probably be an election to remember, regardless of who the winner is. Alot of teachers have even said that they are on the Fence still, as far as voting-even the older ones (not Kautzman…I promise). I can see why. However if the Democratic choice is a battle of personalities, then I’d choose Obama…
Even though I don’t believe for one second that he could end this war, or any other candidate could, for that matter. Basically, in my honest opinion, it’s impossible. We started it, we have to finish it (something like that)… it’s not up to the President, even if it was up to Bush to begin the war and kill off all of our terrorist enemies…
I’m not really up to date on Iraq as of late though, since I don’t pay critical attention to it and it hasn’t really shown up on the blog recently… (I admit! I am ignorant!) but I’m pretty sure that ending this war is not up to the next President.
Will people still blame the president, though, will his decisions to continue dealing with war be counted heavily against him/her… that is my biggest question.
NC – Connection?
After reading this article I feel as though I have not read anything that I did not already know about. However, it is interesting to think of the election in terms of “the best to run against McCain” rather than just who would hold up best once in the White House. Like Broder said, each Democratic candidate does have certain unique qualities that make it hard to decide on whom to vote for; Clinton with “experience”, Obama standing for change. It will be interesting to see who wins between the three current candidates since Clinton and Obama both have specific traits working against them. I can actually see McCain possibly ending up with the presidency since he is, after all, a white male. But even he has the “old age” card playing against him. If people don’t take into account his age I think that he could get a significant amount of votes because of his liberal conservative quality. It is hard to predict still what might happen between Clinton and Obama, since every time one of them moves ahead with delegates the other comes along soon after and gains the lead. At least for the moment, choosing one Democratic candidate over the other is a very difficult task.
NC – Spelling & Connection
A democratic race that only involved one viable candidate would be pretty depressing and probably would not turn out to well. But a democratic race involving Hillary as the only viable candidate would be disturbing. Not only would probably half the democratic population be screwed because they don’t like Hillary, they might end up voting republican or not even voting at all. Now Hillary and Obama are not that different on their ideas, but it is good to have at least one other candidate that is compatible with Hillary to give democrats more of a chose. This is my opinion, but I think most people either really like Hillary, or really dislike her. Now I think it would be a really big accomplishment for Obama to win the nomination; starting as a little known senator promoting change, to winning democratic nomination. I also think he would have a lot better chance against McCain than everybody is giving him credit for. I really think things are going to backfire for McCain; it seems it’s bound to happen eventually. I really find it amusing though how all the predictions that had been made about this election were wrong though. All the things that were supposed to happen haven’t and many new things have happened, all the experienced pundits were wrong on their predictions, yet they keep making new ones.
Look, I realize that this post is not supposed to be a “response” post, but I feel that some things were brought up, and it was inevitable that I was going to talk about them anyways. First of all, I am not surprised by the fact that the percentage of people who have been politically active thus far (caucusing mainly), has actually increased. Our country has been run into the ground. There is no dispute to that. If you disagree, take a long look around you. Thousands of Americans lose their lives because we like money. And to prove it, gas prices are ridiculously high. Whereas pork barrel spending continues, we still waste our money on tax cuts for the people that don’t need them. Our economy is rapidly failing. It seems like a plurality of the world either hates us, or wants our money and weapons. If the previous is not due from the actions of the Republican Congress, then at least the blame obviously still rests on the shoulders of “President Bush”. I think that, contradictory to what Kelsea says, leads to the increase in voter turnout. And along with that, because we, as Americans are obviously not happy with the status quo. And while many Republicans might be distraught over their choice of candidate, or in this case, lack there of, there is a proven higher turnout.
We want change. At least many of us do. In a recent poll conducted by MSN, 56% of Republican voters wanted change. And while change could be negative, I believe that it is implied that the said change would be positive. Moreover, in my opinion, there could be no negative change in the status quo of our country. Again, this is just my opinion, but our morale is so low with what we have now, that, yes all we have is hope to get us through. Sometimes, when one is at the point that we as Americans face, there is nowhere to go but up. However, to accomplish this change, it will take no ordinary person. I agree that Clinton is extraordinary, but I prefer a candidate who believes in the words he speaks, and will actually motivate millions to make a stand, and to take a chance, and to protest. He is a man that truly will change the face of American politics, and along with that, the face of America. He is a man that will leave united in the term “United States of America”. A man that will give every individual hope; not just the billionare, or the good-looking person, or the superstar athlete. Obama will do all this while giving tax cuts to the poor, and will use the incentive system to reward rather than punish. Those that earn it, will get a chance to do so. Just after watching his speech tonight, I learned for the first time of his plan to make college affordable. He will in turn, require that individuals help this country, however. Obama is a man that actually has a plan. One that he will speak of and speak for. I believe him in every word he says. If you haven’t yet, at least try and listen to one of his speeches. I don’t care if youre Republican or Democrat; black or white; make or female-he has something good to say for the sakes of Americans at the very least.
As I read the beginning and title of this article, I thought to myself, although the media might have thought the Democratic side was going to be quite one sided, I hadn’t thought Hillary was even close to being the only solid Democratic candidate. When I thought about all the people who are still bitter toward the Clintons and who just flat out hate Hillary, I knew that there was no way the way she was polling was going to be the actual outcomes of the nomination process. I hated how the article said, “eight or nine candidates – with varying degrees of plausibility – decided it was worth the gamble to try to wrest the nomination from Clinton.” The fact that the media thinks it can predict the outcome of elections and nominations before they even start simply infuriates me. When the article talks about McCain and how the Democrats’ toughest battle will be deciding how to win the general against him, I think they are right. It looks to me that Hillary does not stand as good of a chance against McCain as Barack, and it seems like this article tends to agree. When I went to the caucus, I brought an article that talked about this same thing the Obama had on his website from Newsweek magazine that said Hillary could win, but it would be tough and that Obama was the only one who could win in a landslide. As an Obama fan, I can only hope this is true. As for my connection, this article obviously plays along the lines of the media’s attempt to control the outcomes of elections through their polls and the never-ending battle to try to predict everything before it happens. My question is: how can that be news? How can a prediction of the future be constituted as something everyone should believe before it even happens? What a strange society I feel we live in some days.
In response to John Maccini I think that the media might favor the Democratic Party in many ways and by the likes of this title it was just another one of those, but it really changed my mind. The media looked more on the republican side thought that they had a better chance to winning the election if Barrack Obama were to run against John McCain. Well its true Obama does not beat Hillary Clinton or McCain on experience. In this respect I think Hillary is the best candidate for the Democratic Party. Though some say Barrack stands for a change Hillary will change it just as well. She has plenty of experience and we just need a change from the conservative side to help strengthen our economy.
The media takes polls that’s how they can show out comes of elections before they happen and I think that the polls favor Obama because people voted for him in the primaries well obviously they want him to win the presidency. The real question is will he swing enough votes from the republicans, especially those who seem to be a little more on the racist side, as America is still not over racism. McCain I think will have the best chance over either of them he is the experienced one and will pull the votes from the independents as he leans left on a lot of issues.
I don’t know how much more of the media’s spin and crazy theories I can take. Election time is a topsy-turvy, unpredictable time; but the media does not appear to realize this. Every week the media has picked out a new “front runner” or has figured out the key to another candidate’s success. The author of this article writes that “many Democrats were expecting a smooth passage to a historic nomination and a relatively easy presidential victory”. As a Democrat I know I was not expecting an uneventful election; you know who was expecting a smooth election and was very sure to vocalize it? The media. It is somewhat funny to me that this article talks about how Hillary was “the favorite among a large field of challengers” and how “she was the center of attention, not only for the Democrats but for the Republican candidates as well”. The author is leaving out the major giver-of-attention to Hillary: THE MEDIA. It’s annoying that the media holds such an important position in the outcome of elections, because often times the media is not saying what the average person would think of on their own. But as soon as the average person keeps hearing the same thing over and over again on television or the radio, their position or opinion of an issue will change.
This was a very interesting article, in that it broke down the three candidates strong points and compared the republicans and democrats. But does experience really mean that much for the presidential campaign? I mean George W. Bush had some experience with his dad being a president and look what kind of president he his. I certainly do not want Barrack to be our president but I do not think that experience plays a huge roll. It is one of those things you can not really prepare for. You never know what will happen, therefore you can not be very well experienced. And then for Barrack and preaching all about change. Is a complete revamp what our country needs? No. We could use a few changes here and there but basing your campaign on change just does not do it for me. I want someone who will be steady. I do not want to be part of some test to see if change will work. If it is not broke do not fix it. In this case we are not broke. We have a screw or too loose that needs some fixing, but someone who is all about change just is not my kind of candidate.
So I agree with Brian on Obama and him creating change as we learned in class, when it comes to the polls Americans always say they would vote for a woman or African American for president, but when it comes down to voting they still go with their comfort zone, but I do not believe our country is in as bad of shape as he made it out to be. At the moment, sure, we are looking pretty bad with foreign affairs and finding a solution to the never-ending war in Iraq, but I am feeling a sense of optimism. I mean, from what Kautzman said in class today about the recession of our economy, it sounds as though this whole situation is not as serious as the media has announced. From the way things look I do not believe that we will have another depression or anything; we are just currently in a minor downhill slide economically and it will work itself back up soon. Also, as far as Americans not being happy with the status quo, I really don’t think many have noticed yet. Maybe it is just the people I personally am surrounded by on a daily basis, but I have yet to hear anyone even bring up the subject of a failing economy; sometimes ignorance really is bliss. I’m sure many Americans have heard about it on the news, but it hasn’t really hit yet. Same with the “low morale” and having only hope to get us by; our country is still up and running, even if it isn’t at its best.
Well, Brian Freeland, all I have to say is if you think Clinton is extraordinary, why are you so biased? You said: “I agree that Clinton is extraordinary, but I prefer a candidate who believes in the words he speaks, and will actually motivate millions to make a stand, and to take a chance, and to protest. He is a man that truly will change the face of American politics, and along with that, the face of America. He is a man that will leave united in the term “United States of America”. A man that will give every individual hope; not just the billionaire, or the good-looking person, or the superstar athlete.” This quote starts out with a woman being great, but every reference to the Presidency is a male pronoun. What’s with that? Even the sentence that is about Hillary, you use “he!” I understand if you are not ready for women to be up with the biggest political jocks, but the fact is if you are going to make a statement about a woman being an astonishing person, use pronouns that agree with your statement, not obviously biased descriptions favoring men.
Additionally, I have to disagree with Jarek. “We could use a few changes here and there but basing your campaign on change just does not do it for me. I want someone who will be steady. I do not want to be part of some test to see if change will work. If it is not broke do not fix it. In this case we are not broke. We have a screw or too loose that needs some fixing, but someone who is all about change just is not my kind of candidate.” You implied that focusing on change means that you are unsteady or shaky. Hmm. Let’s break this down, focusing, change, unsteady. Yes, some change can be unstable. You don’t know what will happen, and you may not be prepared for it. But, if you are focused, or alert, how can you be unsteady? You also have to take into the fact that in Obama’s choice of career, you can’t be completely oblivious. (Yes, Bush is usually distracted with his coloring books, but ha does know some of the happenings.) Obama will take calculated risks to change the things we need changed. It’s not like he’s going to toss the Constitution and start over. That wouldn’t even come close unless Obama has a secret life in the Middle East where he learned the dark arts from Hitler and Stalin. Highly unlikely. Anyway, you also said that you didn’t want to be apart of some “test to see if change will work.” Without change how can we progress? We can’t. Without change, how can we become more efficient? We can’t. How can we fix our problems if we don’t change? We can’t. Plus, Obama is for fixing things that aren’t quite up to par.
On a side note, I just thought that I would point out a comical observation. Many people agree that Hillary is either liked or hated. People love her. People hate her. There isn’t any in between. There is no gray area. It is a black and white choice. Coincidentally, the Democratic nomination is a black or white choice. Obama or Clinton. I thought it was quite hilarious that no one’s pointed this out.
I have to disagree with you, Kelsea.
You may not think that there is a lot of change in our government, but think about what we just talked about in class on Thursday about tax brackets. Reagan started the three tier federal income tax set-up, the first bracket being 0%, the second 15%, and the third 28%. Bush Sr. added another level – 31%. Clinton topped it off with two more levels, 36% and 39.6%. Because of those brackets, the government started generating revenue that helped to pay things off. The United States was not in debt, but had money. And quite frankly, I would consider that as the president having the ability/using that ability to change our government. Thinking of changing taxes does not seem like a big change when looking at the government as a whole, but the way we as US citizens are taxed – it changes everything! And think about Ron Paul and his ideas on taxing – state a flat tax. That would change everything. The poor would hate it and the rich would love it.
It may not seem like any one person can do anything about the war in Iraq. You said, “I’m pretty sure that ending this war is not up to the next President”. He can’t do it alone, but don’t you think that he/she could do something? It was the president who started the whole idea of the surge in Iraq. The president has A LOT of power. It may not be completely up to this next president to end the war, but if we want an end to it, it would not make any sense to elect a president who is FOR the war. If the next president was against the war in Iraq, don’t you think he/she would try just about anything to get our troops home safely and end the war? Can they do it in a year? Can they do it in their one or two terms? I highly doubt it, but the position of the president on that topic alone could make a world of difference with what goes on between the United States and Iraq.
The president has a lot more power to change government than you think…
So I agree that when it comes down to it, change is inevitable and at any point it seems like anything, or at least something, has to change. But I think that the fact that anyone, at this point its Obama, is pushing change so much, it has to mean something. The fact is that he wants to get out there and try to change something to our government. Yeah, every candidate has and will continue to use this tactic, but I kind of don’t mind it. I would rather have someone pushing for change and a difference then simply sitting back and saying that every candidate speaks for a change, so I’m going to be different and make a “change” by not advocating such extreme changes. Kelsea asked, “What would happen after Obama went through with all of his changes that he’s been campaigning for and would we even be satisfied with just that?” I say that at least he made some changes and even if people don’t like them Obama had to think they were for the good of the country, so we would just have to hope that they would be. After he had made his promised changes, chances are he would have to start making other changes, possibly even making changes to his “changes”. When you say. “What then?” I think it means just that. We can’t know what is going to happen to the enforcement of change and different policies, we’ll just have to wait for them to follow through and then look at them and wonder what will happen next.
Alright, so I think I would have to disagree with Kelsea. You say that this next President isn’t going to have the ability to end this war in Iraq. That we started this big deal, and we need to end it. Well, I partially agree with you. As much as I also think that since we’ve kind of jumped into this big mess over in Iraq, we need to end it, but I do feel as though our next President is going to have to end this war, or do as much as he or she can or the people are just going to continue disagree with our government. I think all of the candidates have the general feeling that something over this war is going to have to change. I do agree with you that it is going to be hard to end. It’s projected by many that we will be in Iraq for another 20 years, and I think that is inevitable. I think the people are going to have to make this tough decision with the democratic nominees, as America is split between Clinton and Obama. As more super delegates sign onto their respective candidate, I think more people will back a certain candidate that will lead them into the convention, which for the democrats is July, giving them even less time to make that important decision. AS for the republicans, it would seem as though McCain somewhat has his nomination locked up, but with Romney kind of sitting on the sidelines, waiting his turn to help another candidate or jump back in, Huckabee may have more of a chance than people are giving him against his dominating opponent. It has already been proved that frontloading with this nomination has done nothing for the states have chosen to, and we will have to wait and see how these final states turn out, and how the super delegates pledge their allegiances.