Obama is the nominee. We realistic Clinton supporters knew that the final nail in the coffin was the night of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. A number of Clinton supporters have written diaries saying this result doesn't reflect the will of the people. I share their pain and feel the Obama nomination is wrongheaded but I must respectfully disagree with their view that it does not reflect the will of the people.
Now, I ask, in our dissapointment, who should we blame?
1) Well, first I believe that we cannot blame the superdelegates who have been moving to Obama at an accelerating rate. They have had to make a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea and I don't envy their position. No matter which choice they make they will anger substantial numbers of Democrats. We could all argue whose supporters are the more damaging to alienate and we could provide plausible arguments. In the end, going with the person who amassed the most pledged delegates is at least the safe choice. Both these candidates have been damaged and both have shown strengths. Only the most fanatical supporters of each will argue that only one or the other offers potential risks or rewards.
2) I do blame the Democratic primary structure. We have been given three opportunities (Washington, Texas, and Nebraska) to see that caucus results have differed markedly from primary results. Typically, participation rates in caucuses ran one-sixth to one-third of the participation of primaries yet these caucuses were awarded full state delegate totals. The caucus system may appeal to activists but they may produce a decision that is less representative of the overall feeling in a state than a primary. General elections are won in the center where activists often do not reside.
There is no reason to keep primaries open. Force participants to register at least 30 days before the primary. Throughout this season we had continual debates about the motives of Republican interlopers. Why worry about such things? If Independents want to vote in the Democratic primary, they should make the affirmative decision to commit to that party for at least the same 30 days. We have independents in Congress and they have to make a decision about which party they will join to caucus.
3) Blame the Clinton campaign. They made some key mistakes in operational strategy and message. Failing to compete in too many smaller places effectively ceded those to Obama. Attacking Obama earlier in the campaign on petty issues (like the words about Reagan) and not hammering more serious ones, had the effect of hurting her and helping him. She also made the mistake of making her nomination too much about gender. She didn't need to do that and it cheapened her candidacy. Once this election became about identity politics, people felt free to look at one historical identity achievement or the other and take a pass on hers. The other operational errors have been well discussed so I see no point in rehashing them.
By contrast, give credit to the Obama campaign where credit is due. Their operational strategies were superior for the rules of this game. Personally, I don't think much of his message, but at least he didn't make too many mistakes in message.
4) Finally, blame the Democratic voters if you feel the result is wrong. Ultimately, they are the ones responsible. Sure, Hillary may have won Democrats overall (this might have been enough without the problems mentioned in #2), but not a high enough percentage of them. My own view is that at least half the party has crossed the great river into La La Land, but voters are entitled to do that. Obama's nomination does reflect the will of the voters. I may wish that weren't true, but, like the 2004 general election, I have to accept what I consider to be a wrongheaded verdict.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 282 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
