Empty Threats
I was recently asked if I thought the current battle between Senators Obama and Clinton would hurt the Democratic party. My answer: No.
The media and all the chest thumping pundits they air have done a rousing good job of planting the idea that Clinton’s supporters would not vote for Obama should he be the nominee — and vice versa. Let’s set the record straight right now: That, dear friends, is utterly ridiculous.
Whomever the Democratic nominee is, he or she will have the support of either campaign’s supporters. Will there be a little bitterness? Sure. Could it take a little time before the losing team can suck it up? Of course.
But does anyone honestly believe that when McCain starts in on whomever is the Democratic party’s nominee — touting his message in support of the war in Iraq, in support of tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, a message that does not contain a universal health care plan and will leave domestic policy up to his advisers, ’cause he doesn’t know about that stuff’ — that either Clinton or Obama’s supporters will fail to rally?
What you’re saying then, in essence, is that a group of vocal, passionate people who believe in the ideals held by the Democratic party will sit in their corner, arms folded, while a Republican — and a highly conservative one at that — becomes our next president.
This sustained battle is keeping Democratic party activists engaged in the process. Yes, McCain is, for the most part, able to rest up his weary senior citizen’s bones. However, while the Democratic convention is not until August, the primaries are over as of June 3. At that point, there should be little doubt as to who is the Democratic nominee.
The Democratic National Convention: this is where your worries become valid.
Strictly looking at the numbers as they stand today, Obama is the people’s choice. However, Clinton could still become the nominee should the super delegates rally behind her.
That would be cause for the party to implode.
It would be a “will of the people” vs. “party elite” showdown. Party leadership would be ill-advised to so much as even hint at the idea of their choosing the nominee over the will of the people.
The public relations nightmare that would ensue cannot be overemphasized. And I cannot think of a single palatable way in which they could spin it.
Were I advising the two campaigns, I would tell each to fight like hell up through the end of the primaries. But come June 3, there should be a concession.
Whomever does not have the people’s vote should bow out with dignity and honor, because at that point the aforementioned scenario is the only way he or she could be victorious.
And that victory would, more than likely, spell defeat for the party.
You are correct, of course, that the committed vocal Democrats will almost certainly close ranks and support whomever wins the nomination — no matter how bitter the primary fight between Clinton and Obama.
But those Democrats cannot hope to win the presidential election without the support of yet-undecided voters in the middle, those moderate Democrats and Republicans who may hold their nose and vote Republican or stay at home if they are uninspired or disappointed by disarray in the Democratic party.
It’s the undeclared bystanders in the U.S. political process who are increasingly at risk the longer the disruptive fight between Clinton and Obama goes on.
It’s a classic irony that the Democratic party’s openness to free-wheeling debate and intelligent if complicated solutions to public problems so often causes it to appear disorganized and thus poorly suited to lead the executive branch of government.