June 17, 2008

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU RUN ON IDENTITY INSTEAD OF IDEAS:

Unity still out of reach (MATTHEW DALLEK, 6/17/08, Washington Post)

On matters of policy, the differences between Obama and Clinton are indeed small, and numerous pundits have predicted a rapid reversal of the primary enmity. Nonetheless, the divisions among their followers are not insignificant and easily bridged. In the history of modern primary campaigns, ideology is one, but far from the only, source of disunity between presidential candidates of the same party. Historically speaking, issues of class, gender, race and even personality have been nearly as poisonous in causing internecine strife as ideological infighting has been. [...]

[C]linton’s campaign has deepened the doubts that some voting blocs have had about Obama. She successfully courted Latinos, Jews, blue-collar voters and white women partly by comparing Obama unfavorably to McCain, portraying Obama as too inexperienced to lead “on Day One” and as an elitist who is out of touch with kitchen-table concerns.


Strike one. Strike two. Strike three.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 17, 2008 8:29 AM

The media talk on this has been incredibly clueless. Everyone is talking about that this should be easy to reconcile because the ideology is not far apart, or even that Obama is sufficiently feminized to appeal to gender issues. None of this is really important.

This is about power and control within the Democratic Party. The faction around the Clintons do not want to relegated to the sidelines and see their influence negated. Meanwhile, Obama probably does not want to see hios hands tied or potentially backstabbed by agreeing to too many Clinton demands or risk that his VP is loyal to someone other than himself. This is pretty much your naked power politics, but no one wants to actually say so.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at June 17, 2008 10:44 AM

Power in the Democratic Party rests with unions, blacks and women. He's the feminine candidate. He'll carry single women easily. He's black. He'll carry blacks. He's willing to carry water for Labour. He'll get union backing and public employee union votes.

He's in trouble with Catholics, Jews, Asians, Latinos and married women. So would she have been.

Posted by: oj at June 17, 2008 12:22 PM

Hillary was pillorized for not being honest. For once, she told the unvarnished truth: by comparing Obama unfavorably to McCain, portraying Obama as too inexperienced to lead “on Day One” and as an elitist who is out of touch with kitchen-table concerns, she was pillorized again.

Poor Hillary Dangerfield.

Posted by: ic at June 17, 2008 1:59 PM

ic - When pressed during the campaign for the nomination, she started telling the truth. Too late; too soon.

Posted by: Mikey at June 17, 2008 7:32 PM
blog comments powered by Disqus
« WHAT DECLINING PEOPLE...: | Main | JUST ANOTHER ONE OF CONSERVATISM'S "FAILURES": »