I have refrained from posting on the race for the US Democratic Party presidential nomination race, to date. Restraint has been justified, in retrospect, as the see-saw race has embarrassed more than a few pundits, amateur and professional alike.
Full disclosure; if I had a vote in this USA and, if I were a Democrat (not at all a certainty given the party’s propensity to side with its lunier-left and treat as absolutes the self-serving demands of big-unions), I’d be an Obama supporter. His presumed interest in bridging the partisan gulf that has dominated US politics for too long influences my preference. I like to think that, in the final analysis, I am pragmatic enough to support the candidate ant party with the best policies and most reasonable solutions. My conversion, on the domestic scene, from Progressive Conservative to Liberal, is evidence of placing principle ahead of partisanship. Sometimes, switching parties is the only satisfying move and I believe many Republican Party supporters would seriously consider voting for the Democratic Party following the disappointments and national discord the George W Bush presidency has brought the country.
Switching parties, however, would be very dependent upon who is the Democratic nominee. Just as I am convinced that a large number of Republicans would consider switching parties, I am convinced significantly fewer would do so if Hilary Clinton is the candidate than if the Democrats choose Barack Obama. Most Republicans, rightly, harbour a deep disdain for Clinton based on her actions during and since her husband’s presidency. Clinton supporters, meanwhile, try to create a false-memory of joy during the period. Nine year’s of battling terrorism and war have done a lot to erase the angst the USA suffered as Bill Clinton embarrassed the nation, was impeached and, narrowly avoided (on a partisan tie-vote) being booted from office for his dalliances and misleading the public. Hilary, during the same period, failed miserably at the only political project she undertook – health care reform – and retired to The White House private quarters for her husbands second term leaving behind a seriously divided Democratic party and caucus that lost control of Congress.
Now Hilary tries to run on her record and experience of public service which, while marginally longer as a US Senator than Obama, is less than her opponent’s experience in local, state and national arenas. And whereas Hilary Clinton was parachuted into Congress as New York senator with the help of a party machine controlled by Clinton cronies, Obama worked his way up from community service to the state senate and eventually Washington. This is why so many Americans are responding better to his candidacy than to the Clintons’ self-righteous claim of entitlement to the nomination. To be clear, Clinton did not participate in governing the nation or even have security clearance to sit-in on strategic discussions. She was the nation’s official hostess but not a player in its government.
In contrast to the Obama message of reinvigorating America by building unity and commonality of purpose, the Clinton message repeats a tired refrain of division left-over from the conflicts of the 1970s. What influence the Clintons once had was based on creating an illusion that the political enemy was evil, rather than someone with differing opinions and priorities. Candidates who demonise their opponents cannot subsequently succeed as consensus builders and unifiers. While Obama, although there is no guarantee, may be able to attract Republican voters to his cause, Clinton by reason of her (and her husband’s) over-zealous attacks on Obama, is willing to risk driving away Democrats as well as Republicans.
This week we have witnessed Clinton’s call for Obama to join her as the vice-presidential nominee. This from a candidate who is solidly in second place! But that sense of entitlement keeps coming back. Clinton and the former president have “owned” the Democratic Party for so long that they cannot imagine its progression to a new generation and other hands. In so doing, they risk giving the Republicans another victory in November.
Last December, in holiday conversations with friends and while noting I could not contemplate predicting who would win the Democratic nomination, that the Republicans would have a good chance of winning if John McCain turned out to be the nominee running against Clinton. Four months ago it seemed as unlikely that McCain would be the nominee as that the Democrats would not have a nominee until about three months before the election. Now those scenarios are a virtual certainty. We can expect five more months of Clinton bashing Obama as unfit to govern while McCain works to convince this electorate that the Bush era is over and Republicans can be trusted again. And come November, should Hilary and the party apparatchiks prevail and she is the nominee, we can expect the millions of Obama supporters to avoid the polls and voting for candidate who stole their dream. Concurrently, few Republicans will be convinced to vote for a candidate they associate with a despised failed presidency of the last century.
Yes, it’s time for the Clintons to accept that while the end of the 20th century belonged to them, the 21st century and the hopes and dreams of Americans longing for a better future rest with another generation.
