A Hungry Nation
The presidential campaign of Barack Obama received a stunning boost this week after scoring a huge victory in South Carolina’s primary Saturday followed by endorsements from Caroline Kennedy, Sen. Edward Kennedy, and other members of one of the royal families of the Democratic Party.
Much has been made about the negative tone that has recently permeated the contest between Obama and Hilary Clinton with most of the blame falling on the Clinton camp. To his credit, Obama has tapped into a positive vein that seems to be surging throughout the country at just the right time for his campaign.
His “Audacity of Hope” rhetoric and determination to run an inclusive campaign contrasts sharply with the image projected by Sen. Clinton, her former president husband and her many experienced surrogates. Her campaign is heavily invested in promoting her not only as more experienced at governing but also more skilled at defending herself from the negative attacks that the Republicans will direct at whichever candidate the Democrats nominate.
At this point in the campaign, the Clinton machine appears seriously out of touch with the mood of the nation. While the candidate and her supporters deny introducing the issue of race, you have to scratch your head and wonder “What was he thinking?” when you hear Bill Clinton dismiss Obama’s success in South Carolina by comparing it to Jesse Jackson’s victory in 1988.
Clearly, it’s too early to call this race over. Only a fraction of the delegates necessary for nomination have been chosen. Tsunami Tuesday is next week when more than 20 states hold primaries and about 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to win will be divided up. But unlike the Republicans, the Democrats divide states up proportionately so that it is very likely that neither Obama nor Clinton will be in a position to declare the race over anytime soon. With all due respect to John Edwards, his inablity to win any of the early contests has made it difficult to imagine a scenario where he can catch either of the frontrunners.
When asked, voters generally complain that there is too little attention paid to substantive issues and too much on the horse race. At this point, that seems a bit beside the point, at least as far as the Democratic contest goes. For one thing, there are very few significant differences between the two. Policy wonks will note that Clinton’s health care proposal pledges to provide universal access, while Obama’s falls short of that standard, popular as it is among the party faithful. But on Iraq, the economy, and so many issues their differences are minimal.
The key variable which may play a larger role than any other for many primary voters is which candidate is most likely to win in November. You can almost sense the Republicans licking their chops at the possibility of running against Clinton. But her supporters say her ability to take on her opponents is one of her greatest assets.
Obama may be less battle-tested but his commitment to maintaining a civil dialogue appears to be connecting with independents and people who have been turned off to politics. Insiders point out the irony in this since Clinton has reinvented herself in the Senate as a collaborative legislator who has reached out to Republicans.
At some point, the choice between Obama and Clinton boils down to a gut check. Which candidate do you feel is more likely to do a better job as president? The truth is, missing a crystal ball, it’s something of a crapshoot.
The one thing we can count on is that the nation will recognize the superiority of the Democratic candidate whoever gets nominated.
That’s a given, right?
