I’m writing this just before Obama’s speech. Happy that there were no big negative surprises and that the margin of victory appears to be so large.
I haven’t been reading any blog responses so far, just watching MSNBC coverage. I’m kind of amazed that everybody (except Pat Buchanan) is convinced that Bill Clinton’s race innuendo strategy has backfired. (After the Jesse Jackson remark today, any doubt about it should be dispelled. Right, Joe?) Nevertheless, I’m not convinced. I have the feeling that the commentators are getting too caught up in the moment–too much like Iowa, and like Iowa losing the big picture. As Buchanan says, Obama’s share of the white vote has been going down in each race–even Edwards beat Obama with the white Democratic vote. Eighty percent of the black vote vs. twenty-four percent of the white vote is a losing formula nationwide. Twenty-four percent of the white vote isn’t going to cut it in the big states.
South Carolina doesn’t mean much unless it creates momentum for Obama that will dramatically change the percentages in the big Super Tuesday states. The one hopeful thing is that apparently Obama was polling only about 10% among white voters earlier in the week, and improved that to about 25%–that’s at least a movement in the right direction. I hope it’s the beginning of a backlash against the Clinton strategy, but it’s not at all clear that it is. It’s also a good sign that he did well with whites under 30 and with white males. Now if only they would turn up at the polls. Identity voting women might very well clinch it for Clinton.
UPDATE 1: Watched Obama’s victory speech on DVR delay. This guy has got it. Great intensity and strength. Loved the way he flipped the Clinton attacks about the Reagan comparison, etc. Loved the way he framed the Clinton strategy as same old Beltway b.s. It allows him to attack the Clintons with a pretty vicious punch, but in the name of the politics of unity. Pretty deft. I thought he did a great job of repositioning himself as the candidate of all Americans–the outreach to Hispanics was nicely done. I think he parried the attacks and the negativity of the last week as well as could be imagined. Loved the whole Si se puede theme. I hope he gets a big bounce going into Super Tuesday, but we’ll see.
UPDATE 2: Now back to reality–The negative campaigning will continue because it works. Every campaign season everybody complains about it, but it doesn’t go away because in the risk/reward calculation, the rewards always justify the risks. South Carolina proves nothing to the contrary. In addition, the politics of identity work against Obama unless he can find a way to flip it to his advantage, and maybe he will be able to do that. Speeches like the one tonight show that he might have what it takes. (But how many people will have heard it?) And the politics of resentment toward the Clintons might begin to play a factor, but it’s too early to tell. But the gender/race issue is the only significant thing Clinton can leverage to differentiate herself from Obama. There is simply not enough separation on any other issue in the public imagination (except maybe leadership style/experience), and the Clintons will continue to use it until it’s a certainty that it doesn’t get results.
UPDATE 3: Here’s the speech:
UPDATE 4: I’ve heard some people complaining about Boomer generation support for Clinton and how that’s messing up Obama’s chances. Well, youngins, there’s a solution. Show up at the polls. Once again, the over-45 voters are the huge majority at 60%. Under 30s are 14%. And by the way, women were 61%. This is not a winning formula for Obama nationwide. White male Democrats, as it turned out, went for Edwards, not Obama, according to the exit polls: Edwards 45% to Obama 27%. White women went to Clinton 42% to Obama’s 22%.
UPDATE 5: A word about Bill Clinton’s role. I don’t have a problem with it, and I find all the sanctimony about it rather annoying. Politics is a street fight. Always was and always will be. I think there are things that cross the line (a la Karl Rove), but I don’t see that the Clintons have crossed it. They are streetfighters, and while they are playing a tough game, I don’t think they are playing unfairly. My blogging here about it has not been to pass some negative judgment on it, but to clarify what the Clinton strategy is, and clearly the race/gender factor is a big part of it. The Clintons are forcing Obama to find a way to define himself over against what they, the Clintons, represent, and so far I think Obama has done superbly well.
However the candidates may distinguish themselves on particular issues, they are a third- or fourth-level factor in the primaries. For most voters they don’t matter. The race/gender issue is a far more important factor in this race–maybe the most important factor when it comes down to voter psychology. I think the second most important is leadership style.
The challenge for Obama is to demonstrate how his leadership style trumps Clinton’s style precisely by taking their streetfighting mentality and flipping it into an opportunity to distinguish himself as the different kind of candidate he presents himself to be. If he is the real thing, he will find a way to do it. And so far I’ve been impressed with the way he has handled it. He’s not running scared. He’s standing firm, parrying the attacks, and getting in some of his own. He’s showing he’s nimble, cool, and confident. The Clintons, on the contrary are looking hot and frustrated.
I hope that Obama wins the nomination, and I hope that if he wins Bill Clinton will fight as hard for him as he is now fighting for his wife. When the GOP unleashes its dogs, it will be good to have the Big Dog fighting on Obama’s side. Then most likely we’ll find a way to appreciate what he brings to the fight. But just don’t let him near the White House again.
UPDATE 6: Ted Kennedy ‘s Endorsement. It’s only significant if it’s the beginning of a tidal shift of establishment figures toward Obama. If Clinton’s Jesse Jackson remark is playing as negatively among
Democratic stalwarts as it appears to be, this could be the trigger of
a significant shift. That remark is significant, not because it’s Lee Atwaterish racism, but because it is no longer an innuendo with a deniability factor. It makes explicit the Clinton strategy that many didn’t want to acknowledge as deliberate. The risk in the risk/reward calculation is backlash, and that remark may have triggered one among mainstream, Hillary-leaning Dems. We’ll see. Just speaking for myself, though, Caroline’s endorsement carries a lot more symbolic weight. I’m just not sure if Ted’s endorsement has that much political heft these days–any more than John Kerry’s, for instance.
Leave a Reply