Things are moving quickly on primary front. The rallying of the Kennedy clan behind Barack Obama may be only the first salvo of a series of blue-ribbon endorsements intended to sweep the Illinois Senator to victory on Super Tuesday.
Here's the tipoff: The Party leadership's choice of Governor Kathleen Sibelius to respond to the President's final State of the Union address.
You have to assume that large segments of the Democratic Party - even within the Beltway - are restless with the notion of returning the Clintons to the White House.
And even more unnerved by the prospect of following the Clintons to defeat in November.
Senator Clinton continues to generate high negatives in the polls, and her husband - thanks to his suddenly-public temper and recourse to racial politics - is rapidly gaining on her. These factors alone would not be sufficient to cause Democratic insiders to desert the Clinton banners, but there is more.
The GOP, against all odds, is beginning to rally behind the one candidate who could actually win in November - Senator John McCain. It's too soon to be certain. Movement conservatives - following the lead of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the AM radio tribunes - might yet tempt Republican regulars into an act of mass self-immolation.
But McCain has a hidden asset. Unusual among US Senators, he has a gift for forming genuine personal friendships. This shows in such things as the loyalty of fellow Senator Lindsay Graham - and in the curiously cordial relations between the McCain and Huckabee campaigns. Fred Thompson - who is yet to endorse a rival - is reported to harbor feelings of genuine friendship for McCain.
Combine this with the fact that virtually all of the Republican field actively loathes Romney, and it looks possible that Republican insiders - led by McCain's fellow Senators and fading rivals - may likewise rally to a champion with a real chance of becoming President.
This has to worry Democrats. In too many scenarios, McCain whips Clinton in the general election.
But Obama might be another story.
Which brings us back to Governor Sibelius. If, as I begin to suspect, Capitol Hill Democrats are slowly lining up behind Obama, there is one segment of the Democratic coalition which will have to be conciliated - white women over 50, the core of the Clinton base.
How better to do this than to nominate an articulate, pragmatic, rising star like Governor Sibelius - a moderate from the red-state heartland - as Obama's running mate?
I'm going out on a limb here, but if Florida comes in for John McCain - and does enough damage to Rudy Guiliani - it's going to start looking a lot like the tide has turned in McCain's favor.
And if that happens, expect to see a host of big-name Democrats beginning to endorse Senator Obama - a few names every day from now until Super Duper Tuesday.
And that could do it.
So watch this: Obama becomes the consensus choice of the Democratic Party leadership. Sibelius begins to be seriously discussed as his running mate.
And the GOP - unwilling to cede the enormous, wealthy demographic of over-50 white women - starts looking for someone like New Jersey's moderate, pro-environment Christine Todd Whitman as a running mate for Senator McCain.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Case for John McCain.
A good friend picked up my last post for his blog, but headlined it in such a way as to suggest that I am still supporting John Edwards.
Sadly, that ship has sailed.
While I hope John Edwards will adopt a second-choice, convention-oriented strategy - that would require him to break with the entire tendency conduct of his campaign so far, i.e., he'd have to do something strategically intelligent.
As a potential president, I really like John Edwards. As a candidate, though, he seems to have caught something chronic from John Kerry.
Actually, the decision I've reached - and it surprised me, too - is that the best thing for the progressive movement is for the Democratic Party to nominate Hillary and go down in flames to John McCain.
I'm not sure the Democratic Party can ever be reformed, but the present Hillary-Obama brawl is basically a war of old-line insiders: the Clinton/DLC machine, minus some of their black supporters vs. the Illinois Democratic machine, plus most of the black Democratic pols. Whoever wins this fight, it isn't going to be the folks who rallied to Howard Dean!
What needs to happen is for the Democratic Party to get so shockingly upset - for President, not Congress - that it either becomes open to reform, or begins to die and make room for a new party (or some entity to replace a party) on the Left.
Which leads me to the conclusion that - assuming Edwards continues to blunder toward extinction - what progressives should do is cross over and support McCain.
At 73 (on January 20, 2009), McCain would almost certainly be a one-term President - and a President eminently qualified to deal with the nastiest parts of the Bush legacy: the mess in Mesopotamia; the flagrant disregard of the Constitution and Geneva in the name of "national security"; and America's failure to take the lead on the environment.
Indeed, as a Republican - assuming the next Senate doesn't have 60 Democrats (exclusive of old Joe) - McCain would probably have more success wrapping these things up than any Democrat.
Besides, between the Bush deficits and the incoming recession, there won't be a lot of money for things like health care in the next four years. It's going to be a "lost" administration in terms of truly progressive legislation.
So I say, let McCain clean up Bush's mess - and elect a staunchly progressive Congress to keep him from doing anything dreadful. It would give McCain the sweetest kind of revenge for 2000 - reversing much of Bush's policy, and moving the GOP toward the center.
And it would give us time to find an outstanding, progressive candidate (Democrat or otherwise) for 2012.
Sadly, that ship has sailed.
While I hope John Edwards will adopt a second-choice, convention-oriented strategy - that would require him to break with the entire tendency conduct of his campaign so far, i.e., he'd have to do something strategically intelligent.
As a potential president, I really like John Edwards. As a candidate, though, he seems to have caught something chronic from John Kerry.
Actually, the decision I've reached - and it surprised me, too - is that the best thing for the progressive movement is for the Democratic Party to nominate Hillary and go down in flames to John McCain.
I'm not sure the Democratic Party can ever be reformed, but the present Hillary-Obama brawl is basically a war of old-line insiders: the Clinton/DLC machine, minus some of their black supporters vs. the Illinois Democratic machine, plus most of the black Democratic pols. Whoever wins this fight, it isn't going to be the folks who rallied to Howard Dean!
What needs to happen is for the Democratic Party to get so shockingly upset - for President, not Congress - that it either becomes open to reform, or begins to die and make room for a new party (or some entity to replace a party) on the Left.
Which leads me to the conclusion that - assuming Edwards continues to blunder toward extinction - what progressives should do is cross over and support McCain.
At 73 (on January 20, 2009), McCain would almost certainly be a one-term President - and a President eminently qualified to deal with the nastiest parts of the Bush legacy: the mess in Mesopotamia; the flagrant disregard of the Constitution and Geneva in the name of "national security"; and America's failure to take the lead on the environment.
Indeed, as a Republican - assuming the next Senate doesn't have 60 Democrats (exclusive of old Joe) - McCain would probably have more success wrapping these things up than any Democrat.
Besides, between the Bush deficits and the incoming recession, there won't be a lot of money for things like health care in the next four years. It's going to be a "lost" administration in terms of truly progressive legislation.
So I say, let McCain clean up Bush's mess - and elect a staunchly progressive Congress to keep him from doing anything dreadful. It would give McCain the sweetest kind of revenge for 2000 - reversing much of Bush's policy, and moving the GOP toward the center.
And it would give us time to find an outstanding, progressive candidate (Democrat or otherwise) for 2012.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Thinking Long-Term
As the primaries and caucuses continue winnowing the field for 2008, I've reluctantly - but not that reluctantly - reached a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of many eager Democrats.
2008 isn't going to be a Democratic year - and that could be a very good thing.
To begin with, I'm increasingly convinced that - for all the excitement generated by the first credible Black candidate for president, and the first credible female candidate for president - the Democratic field is fatally flawed.
There is, of course, the obvious fact that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a resume which inspires confidence. Neither has any serious administrative or foreign policy experience. Neither has an impressive legislative record - particularly in critical areas such as budget and finance. Thus far, the Democrats seem to be eliminating candidates in reverse order of qualification - a trend which could, if followed to its logical conclusion - result in the nomination of Mike Gravel.
More disturbing, however, is the emerging appearance of troubling character flaws in the two leading Democratic candidates. Since New Hampshire, each has shown an increasing tendency toward petulance - as though each believed himself or herself somehow entitled to the party's nomination. The Clintons - both of them - have stepped up their attacks on Obama. In response, Obama has played the race card.
And away we go!
This should not, of course, be that surprising. The Democratic Party has long been more of a coalition of interest groups than a party devoted to something like principled governance. Given that fact - and the fact that two of the largest Democratic constituencies are African-Americans and Boomer generation feminists - it was almost inevitable that things would get intense between two campaigns with strategies rooted in identity politics.
But with Obama playing the race card against the Clintons - long great favorites with African-American voters - the Democratic nomination fight is teetering on the brink of unprecedented nastiness. Someone will win, of course - but whoever does seems destined to do so at the cost of alienating a large chunk of the Democratic base.
How sad that John Edwards - whose third-place campaign could only benefit from staying "above the battle" - seems determined to get down in the muck with the others.
In addition to the emerging flaws of the two principal contenders, it's beginning to look more and more like the next President will be saddled with three enormous problems: a recession; Iraq; and President Bush's legacy of deficit spending, administrative incompetence, and executive overreach.
However those of us who consider ourselves liberals and/or progressives may want an activist administration to tackle challenges such as health care, global warming and improved education, it seems increasingly clear that the President elected in 2008 will spend most of his or her term cleaning up Mr. Bush's mess.
And on a rather straitened budget.
In other words, as I have suggested before, progressives might actually be better off voting for a respectable Republican in 2008 - if there is one; and focusing on nominating and electing good candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives this year; and start working on electing a competent, experienced liberal/progressive President in 2012.
At least, that's what I've come to. The next President will have to spend four years cleaning up after Mr. Bush - certainly one of the worse presidents in American history. It's a thankless job, and whoever gets it will have a hard time winning re-election.
So, are progressives better off winning in 2008 - putting an inexperienced, budget-strapped, and damaged Democrat in the White House? Or surrounding a moderate-conservative Republican with strong Democratic congressional majorities - and thinking long-term?
2008 isn't going to be a Democratic year - and that could be a very good thing.
To begin with, I'm increasingly convinced that - for all the excitement generated by the first credible Black candidate for president, and the first credible female candidate for president - the Democratic field is fatally flawed.
There is, of course, the obvious fact that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a resume which inspires confidence. Neither has any serious administrative or foreign policy experience. Neither has an impressive legislative record - particularly in critical areas such as budget and finance. Thus far, the Democrats seem to be eliminating candidates in reverse order of qualification - a trend which could, if followed to its logical conclusion - result in the nomination of Mike Gravel.
More disturbing, however, is the emerging appearance of troubling character flaws in the two leading Democratic candidates. Since New Hampshire, each has shown an increasing tendency toward petulance - as though each believed himself or herself somehow entitled to the party's nomination. The Clintons - both of them - have stepped up their attacks on Obama. In response, Obama has played the race card.
And away we go!
This should not, of course, be that surprising. The Democratic Party has long been more of a coalition of interest groups than a party devoted to something like principled governance. Given that fact - and the fact that two of the largest Democratic constituencies are African-Americans and Boomer generation feminists - it was almost inevitable that things would get intense between two campaigns with strategies rooted in identity politics.
But with Obama playing the race card against the Clintons - long great favorites with African-American voters - the Democratic nomination fight is teetering on the brink of unprecedented nastiness. Someone will win, of course - but whoever does seems destined to do so at the cost of alienating a large chunk of the Democratic base.
How sad that John Edwards - whose third-place campaign could only benefit from staying "above the battle" - seems determined to get down in the muck with the others.
In addition to the emerging flaws of the two principal contenders, it's beginning to look more and more like the next President will be saddled with three enormous problems: a recession; Iraq; and President Bush's legacy of deficit spending, administrative incompetence, and executive overreach.
However those of us who consider ourselves liberals and/or progressives may want an activist administration to tackle challenges such as health care, global warming and improved education, it seems increasingly clear that the President elected in 2008 will spend most of his or her term cleaning up Mr. Bush's mess.
And on a rather straitened budget.
In other words, as I have suggested before, progressives might actually be better off voting for a respectable Republican in 2008 - if there is one; and focusing on nominating and electing good candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives this year; and start working on electing a competent, experienced liberal/progressive President in 2012.
At least, that's what I've come to. The next President will have to spend four years cleaning up after Mr. Bush - certainly one of the worse presidents in American history. It's a thankless job, and whoever gets it will have a hard time winning re-election.
So, are progressives better off winning in 2008 - putting an inexperienced, budget-strapped, and damaged Democrat in the White House? Or surrounding a moderate-conservative Republican with strong Democratic congressional majorities - and thinking long-term?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)