It was just last week that I wrote an article about how the Democrats have an uncanny ability to blow winnable presidential elections. It has often been written that New York Governor Elliot Spitzer had presidential aspirations. Maybe he was just in a hurry to take his turn destroying his chances at moving into the White House.
Since the news broke yesterday that Spitzer apparently patronized a prostitute in Washington, D.C., my in box has been buzzing with comments (as well as some gloating from Republican friends). I find the whole story so amazing on so many levels, I decided to post my nearly stream-of-consciousness responses to the news here.
- The first I heard that there was a news story breaking was overhearing someone say, "Did you hear about Spitzer?" As I scrambled to look on the New York Times website to see what the story was, my initial reaction was, "Wow. Someone shot Spitzer." That gut response demonstrates two assumptions I obviously had internalized (even if I didn't realize it): First, a sex scandal for the self-described law-and-order governor seemed unlikely to me. Second, he's made so many enemies with his hubris during his first year in office, it didn't seem unusual to me that it would move someone to violence.
- My next thought was, "Well, we now know that Spitzer is a true Democrat, because if he was a Republican, the hooker would have been a guy."
- It then hit me that the story was broken by The New York Times. Which means, my Republican friends, that the Times is going to break a salacious politicians-and-sex story, regardless of the party registration of the offender. All the complainers who bitched about the paper's February 21 front-page story on John McCain's relationship with a female lobbyist can forward their apology letters to:
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
(Oh, and those of you who claim that CNN is liberal, keep in mind that not only did they plaster the news all over the place as its lead story, but they kept saying it was news that "rocked the nation." Considering that CNN's sweet spot is stories about celebutantes and crimes involving pretty women, the fact that a governor saw a prostitute was probably enough to send waves of joy through the network's brass. Since when does practicing tabloid journalism make you a liberal? No need to forward apology letters to CNN, though. As purveyors of garbage non-news, they don't deserve it.)
- Once the story had settled in, I got angry. When Bill Clinton was assailed by sanctimonious Republicans over the possibility that he was unfaithful to his wife with an intern, I defended him 100 percent. I felt, first and foremost, that outside of his family, it was none of anyone's business who he had sex with. I also felt strongly that if it was not for all of the years of bogus, politically motivated investigations into every aspect of his past -- investigations, incidentally, that added up to absolutely nothing -- he never would have been in the position in the first place where he was being asked by lawyers if he engaged in sexual activity with Monica Lewinsky.
Having said all of that, Spitzer is a disgrace who should resign.
There is absolutely no correlation between Spitzer's situation and what Clinton did. Because no matter how you feel about whether prostitution should be illegal or not, it remains on the books as an offense. A governor, certainly one that spent the previous eight years of his life as a crusading attorney general, has to respect the law. Spitzer did not. In fact, he acted as if he was above the law, like the laws of the country didn't apply to him. For the chief executive of a state to behave that way is unforgivable.
Even more than breaking the law, Spitzer put himself in a situation where he was endangering the best interests of his constituents. By having sex with a prostitute? No, by committing a felony that a group of people knew about and, presumably, could hold over his head (and by extension, the heads of the people of New York). What if the person who ran the escort service came to Spitzer and "asked" for a favor, implying strongly that failure to comply with the request would result in the governor's name being leaked to the New York Post as a customer. What would Spitzer have done? It doesn't matter, really. The more important point is that by engaging in this behavior, he made himself vulnerable to the demands of felons. And that is even more unacceptable than Spitzer committing the felony himself, since it would put into play that a gubernatorial decision would be made to save his own hide, not because it benefited the citizens that entrusted him with his job.
I have zero sympathy for Spitzer, and he should resign immediately.
- And this led me back to the Democrats' seeming compulsion to self-sabotage. Which only compounds my anger at Spitzer and makes me sad, too. The ground hasn't been this fertile for Democrats since Watergate ravaged the country's psyche in the mid-1970s. There are signs around the country that a big portion of the electorate has had it with Republican rule and wants a change. It began with the Democrats winning both houses of Congress in November 2006, and despite the party's complete inability to stand up to Bush since, the trend seems to continue unabated. In fact, just days ago, on March 8, Democrat Bill Foster won a special election to fill the vacant seat in Illinois's 14th Congressional District. Big deal, you might think. What's so newsworthy about a Democrat winning a race in strongly blue Illinois? Well, a lot, considering that the seat was formerly held by Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the house when the GOP last controlled Congress, and the district has more registered Republicans than Democrats. When you throw in that John McCain endorsed Foster's opponent, the comfortable victory (53 percent to 47 percent) is an eye-opener.
With the country open to the Democrats, it's vital for the party to put its best foot forward. Spitzer, instead, put a different part of his body somewhere else.
My desire for the Democrats to show themselves in the best light and win in November is not just merely a case of, "I'm a Democrat, I want my team to win" rah-rah bull crap. Too much is at stake this time. I fervently believe that Bush and his administration have fundamentally damaged the country, both in what it stands for and how it is viewed abroad, worse than any president in my lifetime, including Nixon. Obviously, the Iraq war and all of the lies, miscalculations, failures to plan, and just plain wrong decisions has led the way, but there is so much more.
Bush on Saturday vetoed a bill outlawing interrogation techniques like waterboarding, telling the world that the United States condones torture. (McCain pointed out on "60 Minutes" on Sunday that the U.S. prosecuted Japanese officers as war criminals after World War II for waterboarding Americans.) Bush has illegally extended the power of the executive branch, threatening the very nature of our checks-and-balances-based democracy. He has also weakened the ability of government to protect its own people, intentionally appointing political cronies to run government agencies in an effort to ensure that they don't carry out their jobs. This kind of anti-government agenda has had wide-reaching effects, ranging from the FEMA debacle after Hurricane Katrina to the acting head of the Consumer Products Safety Commission actively lobbying Congress to not give her agency more resources. And by appointing two young, right-wing justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush has helped ensure that the damages he inflicted on the country will far outlast his ruinous eight years in office.
That is why it is not just about my guys winning. I think that this presidential election is a last-ditch effort for the citizens of the U.S. to stand up and take the country back from those that would do it harm (and, in this instance, I'm not talking about al-Qaeda, although I absolutely believe we can fight the terrorists better with Obama in office than with Bush, who is the poster child for extremist recruitment, or McCain, who essentially wants to continue Bush's policies).
You can't help thinking that McCain is sitting somewhere comfortable with his top strategists and smiling ear to ear. He has Hillary Clinton and her tunnel vision weakening Obama for November. And now he has the Democratic governor of New York paying big money for prostitutes. How do you think that will play in swing states like Iowa and Missouri?
So if Spitzer's commission of a felony, breach of the trust of the people of New York, or placement of himself in a situation where his decisions could be compromised by criminals are not reasons enough to resign, he has to do it for the party. He has to disappear and fade away as quickly as possible.
It's not just about Spitzer. It's about the Democratic party and the future of this country. And it's not like the Democrats need help blowing things in November.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
“Unhitched”: When Mediocre Things Happen to Good People
[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]
Imagine you are an actress, and, despite your celebrity lineage, you slog through ten years in the business, failing to break through. You settle for roles in movies nobody saw, occasionally getting a regular part on a show that doesn’t go anywhere. And then, one day, you end up on one of the most beloved, innovative, and critically acclaimed sitcoms of all time, where you spend a year as one corner of television’s favorite love triangle. Suddenly, you’re a star. You go on the major talk shows, get interviewed in magazines and newspapers, and, at the age of 31, finally make it. And then, six months later, you are in what amounts to a knock-off of a TBS comedy.
How do you handle it? To find out, just ask Rashida Jones. The Harvard-educated beauty is the daughter of music legend Quincy Jones and “Mod Squad” star Peggy Lipton. She endured ten years of movies with names like “Roadside Assistance” and “Strip Search” (even ending up on the cutting room floor of that one, but that might be a good thing), and managed a season of “Boston Public.” And then, after starring in the well-received British series “NY-LON” (currently in development to be remade for U.S. television), she hit pay dirt: The role of Karen, Jim’s Stamford branch girlfriend on “The Office.” As the girl that got between Jim and Pam, Jones had finally made it.
(As an aside, I am one of the few people in America who was rooting for Jim to choose Karen over Pam, even though I knew the odds of that happening were roughly the same as the networks shuttering their reality divisions to make way for comedy programming.)
Jones did her season on “The Office,” and with the world at her feet, and offers presumably pouring in, she chose as her next move ... “Unhitched” (Fox, Sundays at 9:30 Eastern), a sitcom that feels like a knock-off of “My Boys,” the TBS series about a female sportswriter (played by Jordan Spiro) and her group of guy friends.
I’m not saying “Unhitched,” which made its debut Sunday night, is bad. In fact, I quite enjoyed the pilot, and it certainly is more entertaining than must current sitcoms. But there is nothing at all special about this comedy, and Jones may have the least interesting role on the show. “Unhitched” follows four friends who recently exited bad relationships. Craig Bierko plays Jack “Gator” Gately, whose wife left him for a member of Cirque de Soleil. He is friends with Jones’s Kate, a lawyer who compares every guy to her ex-boyfriend, even though he was, to quote Gator, “a douche.”
Gator and Kate’s two best friends are super broad characters straight out of a multi-camera sitcom (“Unhitched,” like nearly all new comedies, is shot single-camera). Tommy (Johnny Sneed) is a doofus so out of touch with his surroundings that when Gator asks him to take a drunk business associate home, Tommy takes her to Gator’s home, not hers, thinking that’s what Gator wanted. And Freddy (Shaun Majumder) is a nerdy, recently divorced Indian doctor, whose accent is so exaggerated, he makes Apu from “The Simpsons” look like Mohinder from “Heroes.”
At least in the pilot, Jones has the least to do of any of the four main characters. The episode opens with Gator on a blind date with a seemingly normal beautiful woman, who turns out to live in a jungle-like apartment, own a pet chimp, and harbor a desire to have violent sex like the gorillas she studies. The opening scene ends with the chimp wanting to get in on the action with Gator, so that the second scene opens with Freddy, under a sheet, mending to Gator’s injuries in his, um, posterior region. Which leads to one of the best lines of the pilot when Gator describes the chimp as “Bi-curious George.”
Freddy has problems of his own. It’s his birthday, and he is distraught that he cannot repeat his yearly ritual of going to dinner with his wife at his favorite restaurant, “Thank Goodness It’s Friday’s.” So, he hires an escort to go with him to the famed family-friendly dining place. When Freddy falls for the seemingly (the initial impressions of all the dates of the characters in “Unhitched” warrant the tag of “seemingly”) sweet prostitute, he ends up proposing to her after a whirlwind overnight trip to Atlantic City. By the time Johnny Knoxville turns up in a cameo as the hooker’s pimp/boyfriend, things have spiraled far lower for Freddy than you might have guessed.
Tommy, meanwhile, is on a constant quest for women, which includes the 16-year-old daughter of another of Gator’s business associates (he thinks she’s older). He is saved by Gator telling him to “sign her yearbook and start talking with the adults.”
And poor Jones’s Kate is left to cheer up her friends, while going on a date with a Boston Celtics employee who she initially rejected because of his slight stature. The guys urge her to give him a chance, and she does, ending up in courtside seats at a Celtics game and meeting players Paul Pierce and Ryan Gomes. Which would be cool, except Gomes was traded last summer to the Minnesota Timberwolves, something, I’m sure, the folks at Fox were none too happy about. There was no doubt something was going to go wrong with the date, but I was surprised when it turned out to be that the guy was not a team executive, but the leprechaun mascot. This revelation is played like the ultimate embarrassment for Kate, but this view seemed mean-spirited to me. The guy flies into the air and dunks the ball, and she is mortified. Why? The mascot is confident and charismatic. I think what he did was pretty cool. The show, on the other hand, treated the situation like he revealed himself to be a white supremacist. I don’t get it. It certainly didn’t make me sympathetic to Kate’s woes with men.
But I guess I’m overthinking “Unhitched” if I’m judging Freddy’s accent or Kate’s displeasure with her mascot date. I can hear the clamor that it’s “just a sitcom.” And, again, I do acknowledge that the show is funny. When Freddy is under the sheet examining Gator’s behind, and Gator goes to shake Tommy’s hand, Freddy says, “Do not pull that finger.” When Kate asks Gator why he hadn’t signed his divorce papers yet, and Gator says there were still some things he wanted to check, Kate replies, “Why? Is there something you haven’t given her yet?” The punch lines tend to be both funny and smart (the “smart stupid” I wrote about last week).
And the cast is strong. Jones, even though she has little to do, knows how to turn a line. Bierko, who has been successful in theater, is a likable center for the characters to orbit around. And while a bit broad for my taste, Sneed and Majumder generate laughs with their antics.
I even like some of the ways “Unhitched” tries to appear modern. Several scene transitions made use of Google Earth-like satellite photos, showing the change from, say, the characters being in Boston, to Freddy being with his escort in Atlantic City. And the theme song, a dying art on television, is a peppy burst of emo bubble gum that works for the tone of the show. (The song is “Hey,” by Gilmor, which you can listen to at the band’s MySpace page.)
And yet, there is something missing from “Unhitched.” Maybe following up “The Office” was an impossible task, and nothing would have lived up to the heights Jones experienced in the sales office of Dunder Mifflin. But “Unhitched” is something I feel like we’ve seen a million times before. From the tired device of a guy stalling on signing his divorce papers, to the formulaic all-the-dates-will-go-bad plots, it all felt like ground that has been especially well trodden upon. In fact, when Kate is at the Celtics game and meets the players, it kind of felt like Spiro’s “My Boys” character had moved from Chicago to Boston and died her blonde locks brown.
I like “My Boys.” I gave it a good review in this space back in August. But I’m sure no show wants to be known as a “My Boys” wannabe, especially one executive produced by the Farrelly Brothers. (Ah, the chimp attack on Gator’s butt and the Johnny Knoxville cameo make sense now!)
I’ll watch “Unhitched” in the coming weeks. I’ll laugh at its silly humor. I’ll note that it’s a step up from many of the comedy-free sitcoms on television. But I doubt I’ll stop thinking that Rashida Jones deserves more and wondering what would have happened if she was given better material, in the way that “Samantha Who?” is tailor-made for Christina Applegate.
I guess I should be happy Jones is working. “Unhitched” may not be “The Office,” but it beats being cut out of “Strip Search.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Democrats Act to Blow Another Presidential Election
I asked my father during the 1976 presidential primaries and caucuses what the difference was between Democrats and Republicans. He was able to sum it up briefly for my nine-year-old mind: Democrats think government can be used to solve the people's problems, while Republicans think less government and more support of business is the correct way to move the country forward.
If a nine-year-old asked me the same question now, my instinct would be to describe the parties this way: Republicans do a great job of getting elected but a poor job of governing, while Democrats are so inept at choosing candidates, they can find a way to lose any presidential election, no matter how much the country's condition skews in their favor. As a registered Democrat, I don't take joy in writing that description, but, sadly, a look at history has proven me correct.
Since 1976, the Democrats have won three presidential elections (Bill Clinton twice, partially thanks to Ross Perot siphoning votes from the Republicans, and Jimmy Carter in 1976, thanks to the post-Watergate mistrust of Republicans and a sagging economy), while the Republicans have won five times. In three of those instances, the Democrats blew legitimate chances of winning (not coincidentally, all three times, the opponent was named Bush). Twice it was due to the party picking a completely unelectable candidate (Michael Dukakis in 1988 and John Kerry in 2004), and once it was due to an ostensibly good candidate self-destructing on the campaign trail (Gore in 2000, with his indefensible, red-faced wander towards Bush during a nationally televised debate).
It's nice to see the Democrats finding a new and interesting way of throwing away a presidential election this year, despite the fact that conditions are even more favorable for the party than they were in 1988, 2000 and 2004.
When the Democratic presidential campaign began more than a year ago (it feels like it's been a decade), and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, two sitting U.S. Senators from very, very blue states, emerged as the front-runners, I was inconsolable. There is a lot of talk about these candidates making history (as the first woman or African-American to get a major party nomination for the presidency), but, to me, the elevation of these candidates demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of electoral history by the party. As I've written many times, the country has not put a sitting U.S. Senator in the White House since 1960, nor have they chosen a Democrat from a northern state since that election. Throw in how Clinton is (unfairly, I always say) disliked by so many voters and such a rallying point for conservatives, and I couldn't believe we were doing it again, picking candidates that, based on how Americans have voted in the last 44 years, were not going to win. I kept thinking, "We never, ever learn. When will Democrats figure out how to nominate electable candidates?"
But for 2008, we had a lot going for us that might make it possible for a Democrat to win despite the lessons of history. Bush's approval rating was hovering around the freezing point (Fahrenheit, although one wonders, based on Bush's performance, why it wasn't closer to the Celsius freezing mark), and the Republican choices seemed like an extremely motley crew. With John McCain left for dead based on problems in his campaign and early poll numbers, who would be a threat to the Democrats? The flip-flopping Mormon who would say anything to be elected? The pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun, thrice-married, dress-wearing former New York mayor whose approval rating on September 10, 2001, was remarkably close to Bush's current mark? The guy who played the D.A. on "Law and Order" and seemed to be comatose during the debates? After the shocking results in Iowa, would it be the former Arkansas governor/preacher who doesn't believe in evolution? There wasn't one in the bunch you could see winning in November.
But if you go back to my description of Republicans, what was the first thing I said? They know how to get elected. So none of the early leading nutjobs got the nomination. Instead, despite the hand-wringing of the right wing of the party, the GOP nomination went to the guy known for being two things: a war hero who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war and a maverick moderate who appeals to independents and right-leaning Democrats. (Let's put aside whether the second thing is true about McCain, because that's the way he is viewed by the American people.)
In other words, once again, the Republicans picked the most electable candidate they were offered.
And the Democrats? Well, as they say, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and after the results of the Ohio and Texas primaries yesterday, the Democrats have soundly flunked history.
See, despite picking two front-runners that, on paper, were unelectable, the Democrats early in the process stumbled onto a movement. In the way that McCain's perception as a maverick allows him to be seen as an outsider even though he sits in the U.S. Senate (viewed by a wary American electorate as the ultimate bastion of inside-Washington politics), Obama, too, could set himself apart, based on his age, race, record of activism, and brief amount of time in office. More importantly, Obama attracted young and new voters who had shunned the political process in the past and found a way to be perceived as nonpartisan, someone with appeal to moderates and even some Republicans.
After handing Obama victories in 11 straight contests, it looked like Democrats had finally learned their lesson. They had shunned the unelectable Clinton. (I've written numerous articles on why she is unelectable, so I won't repeat myself here. But if you're interested, you can check out my articles from July 2007, November 2007 and February 2008.) As importantly, they had found a charismatic candidate that had a chance to become a kind of movement. Someone who could reach beyond party lines and compete with McCain for moderate voters in swing states.
I thought maybe the Democrats had figured it all out. I should have known better. History has shown us that Democrats, sooner or later, will blow a presidential election, if given half a chance. And since Obama's last victory, that process has taken hold. First, Clinton went on the attack, pulling the campaign into the gutter in a way that will only serve McCain, who got to sit on the side and watch the carnage with a big smile on his face. (I discussed the long-term effects of Clinton's attacks in a February 29 article.)
And the voters of Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas put the final nail in the Democrats' coffin, handing victories to Clinton in those three states. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that voters have a right to choose the candidate they think will do the best job in office. But, at the same time, there are consequences to votes, and the voters in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas will have to live with those consequences. What are they?
Well, first, Clinton's wins demonstrate that she succeeded in tearing down Obama, slowing his momentum considerably and diminishing him in the eyes of the electorate at large. That was her goal, after all, and it seems to have worked. But this is a problem, no matter who eventually emerges with the nomination. If she manages to get the nod, it will mean, well, that she has to actually run against McCain in November. As I've argued again and again, Clinton would be a weaker candidate in the general election. (Again, if you want to read why Obama has a better chance against McCain, read my articles from July 2007, November 2007 and February 2008.)
And if Obama goes on to be the Democratic nominee, Clinton's successful attacks of the last two weeks will have only served to help McCain. In fact, McCain can even use Clinton's strategy as a road map, since, after all, it has been battle tested and proven effective against Obama. She has weakened Obama at a late stage after he established real momentum. Nobody who wants a Democrat to win in November should be happy about that.
More importantly, the Republicans (experts at winning elections, as always) have chosen their nominee and are now coming together and organizing against the Democrats, looking solely at November. Meanwhile, thanks to Clinton's victories in Ohio and Texas, the Democratic race goes on. And not just for another week or two. The next major primary is in Pennsylvania, which is on April 22, a full seven weeks away. That's nearly two months of Clinton and Obama attacking each other, all to the benefit of McCain.
Finally, and most importantly, Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas bring into play an election decided by superdelegates, which could rip the party to shreds. The dirty little secret behind Clinton's wins is that she only picked up between 10 and 15 delegates and still trails Obama by more than 100 elected delegates. Barring an Obama collapse in the coming months, even with her big victories in Ohio and Texas, there is virtually no way Clinton can finish with more elected delegates than Obama. So the only way she will be able to secure the nomination will be through the superdelegates, who are unelected party big shots who can vote for any candidate they choose at the convention.
If the Democratic race goes to the convention, and the nomination is given to a candidate who earned fewer voted delegates, all thanks to the largess of party insiders, the result will be catastrophic. The message such a turn of events would send to the country would only reinforce everything Americans hate about politicians (and, not incidentally, fear about Hillary Clinton), that they are self-interested and out of touch with the average citizen. It would put the Democrats on the same playing field as the Republicans' conduct in the aftermath of the 2000 election.
Maybe even worse would be the loss of morale and energy of the millions of people who turned out to vote for Obama. If your candidate wins fewer elected delegates, it's much easier to support the winner in November. But what if your candidate actually got more votes but got shafted? Talk about a problem energizing your base.
Mark my words. If Obama wins more elected delegates, but superdelegates give the nomination to Clinton, the Democratic party will descend into crisis. People will change their registrations in protest, stay at home on election day, or even vote for McCain. The result will be a comfortable win for McCain in November.
Maybe that's something that the Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas Democrats who voted for Clinton should think about as they go to sleep tonight. And it's certainly something that the Democratic voters in Pennsylvania should think of, as well as party members in the upcoming states of Wyoming, Mississippi, Guam (yes, Guam has a primary and nine delegates to the convention), Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico (if things have not been sorted out by the time Puerto Rico votes on June 7, heaven help the Democrats).
I don't think any Democrat wants to see George W. Bush in a John McCain mask running the country for the next four years. But if things continue on this path, Clinton's 2008 "comeback" might just join Dukakis, Gore and Kerry on the list of Democratic debacles.
If I'm asked to explain to someone the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, I'd rather use my father's explanation than mine. Unfortunately, Democratic primary voters aren't leaving me with that option.
If a nine-year-old asked me the same question now, my instinct would be to describe the parties this way: Republicans do a great job of getting elected but a poor job of governing, while Democrats are so inept at choosing candidates, they can find a way to lose any presidential election, no matter how much the country's condition skews in their favor. As a registered Democrat, I don't take joy in writing that description, but, sadly, a look at history has proven me correct.
Since 1976, the Democrats have won three presidential elections (Bill Clinton twice, partially thanks to Ross Perot siphoning votes from the Republicans, and Jimmy Carter in 1976, thanks to the post-Watergate mistrust of Republicans and a sagging economy), while the Republicans have won five times. In three of those instances, the Democrats blew legitimate chances of winning (not coincidentally, all three times, the opponent was named Bush). Twice it was due to the party picking a completely unelectable candidate (Michael Dukakis in 1988 and John Kerry in 2004), and once it was due to an ostensibly good candidate self-destructing on the campaign trail (Gore in 2000, with his indefensible, red-faced wander towards Bush during a nationally televised debate).
It's nice to see the Democrats finding a new and interesting way of throwing away a presidential election this year, despite the fact that conditions are even more favorable for the party than they were in 1988, 2000 and 2004.
When the Democratic presidential campaign began more than a year ago (it feels like it's been a decade), and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, two sitting U.S. Senators from very, very blue states, emerged as the front-runners, I was inconsolable. There is a lot of talk about these candidates making history (as the first woman or African-American to get a major party nomination for the presidency), but, to me, the elevation of these candidates demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of electoral history by the party. As I've written many times, the country has not put a sitting U.S. Senator in the White House since 1960, nor have they chosen a Democrat from a northern state since that election. Throw in how Clinton is (unfairly, I always say) disliked by so many voters and such a rallying point for conservatives, and I couldn't believe we were doing it again, picking candidates that, based on how Americans have voted in the last 44 years, were not going to win. I kept thinking, "We never, ever learn. When will Democrats figure out how to nominate electable candidates?"
But for 2008, we had a lot going for us that might make it possible for a Democrat to win despite the lessons of history. Bush's approval rating was hovering around the freezing point (Fahrenheit, although one wonders, based on Bush's performance, why it wasn't closer to the Celsius freezing mark), and the Republican choices seemed like an extremely motley crew. With John McCain left for dead based on problems in his campaign and early poll numbers, who would be a threat to the Democrats? The flip-flopping Mormon who would say anything to be elected? The pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun, thrice-married, dress-wearing former New York mayor whose approval rating on September 10, 2001, was remarkably close to Bush's current mark? The guy who played the D.A. on "Law and Order" and seemed to be comatose during the debates? After the shocking results in Iowa, would it be the former Arkansas governor/preacher who doesn't believe in evolution? There wasn't one in the bunch you could see winning in November.
But if you go back to my description of Republicans, what was the first thing I said? They know how to get elected. So none of the early leading nutjobs got the nomination. Instead, despite the hand-wringing of the right wing of the party, the GOP nomination went to the guy known for being two things: a war hero who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war and a maverick moderate who appeals to independents and right-leaning Democrats. (Let's put aside whether the second thing is true about McCain, because that's the way he is viewed by the American people.)
In other words, once again, the Republicans picked the most electable candidate they were offered.
And the Democrats? Well, as they say, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and after the results of the Ohio and Texas primaries yesterday, the Democrats have soundly flunked history.
See, despite picking two front-runners that, on paper, were unelectable, the Democrats early in the process stumbled onto a movement. In the way that McCain's perception as a maverick allows him to be seen as an outsider even though he sits in the U.S. Senate (viewed by a wary American electorate as the ultimate bastion of inside-Washington politics), Obama, too, could set himself apart, based on his age, race, record of activism, and brief amount of time in office. More importantly, Obama attracted young and new voters who had shunned the political process in the past and found a way to be perceived as nonpartisan, someone with appeal to moderates and even some Republicans.
After handing Obama victories in 11 straight contests, it looked like Democrats had finally learned their lesson. They had shunned the unelectable Clinton. (I've written numerous articles on why she is unelectable, so I won't repeat myself here. But if you're interested, you can check out my articles from July 2007, November 2007 and February 2008.) As importantly, they had found a charismatic candidate that had a chance to become a kind of movement. Someone who could reach beyond party lines and compete with McCain for moderate voters in swing states.
I thought maybe the Democrats had figured it all out. I should have known better. History has shown us that Democrats, sooner or later, will blow a presidential election, if given half a chance. And since Obama's last victory, that process has taken hold. First, Clinton went on the attack, pulling the campaign into the gutter in a way that will only serve McCain, who got to sit on the side and watch the carnage with a big smile on his face. (I discussed the long-term effects of Clinton's attacks in a February 29 article.)
And the voters of Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas put the final nail in the Democrats' coffin, handing victories to Clinton in those three states. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that voters have a right to choose the candidate they think will do the best job in office. But, at the same time, there are consequences to votes, and the voters in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas will have to live with those consequences. What are they?
Well, first, Clinton's wins demonstrate that she succeeded in tearing down Obama, slowing his momentum considerably and diminishing him in the eyes of the electorate at large. That was her goal, after all, and it seems to have worked. But this is a problem, no matter who eventually emerges with the nomination. If she manages to get the nod, it will mean, well, that she has to actually run against McCain in November. As I've argued again and again, Clinton would be a weaker candidate in the general election. (Again, if you want to read why Obama has a better chance against McCain, read my articles from July 2007, November 2007 and February 2008.)
And if Obama goes on to be the Democratic nominee, Clinton's successful attacks of the last two weeks will have only served to help McCain. In fact, McCain can even use Clinton's strategy as a road map, since, after all, it has been battle tested and proven effective against Obama. She has weakened Obama at a late stage after he established real momentum. Nobody who wants a Democrat to win in November should be happy about that.
More importantly, the Republicans (experts at winning elections, as always) have chosen their nominee and are now coming together and organizing against the Democrats, looking solely at November. Meanwhile, thanks to Clinton's victories in Ohio and Texas, the Democratic race goes on. And not just for another week or two. The next major primary is in Pennsylvania, which is on April 22, a full seven weeks away. That's nearly two months of Clinton and Obama attacking each other, all to the benefit of McCain.
Finally, and most importantly, Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas bring into play an election decided by superdelegates, which could rip the party to shreds. The dirty little secret behind Clinton's wins is that she only picked up between 10 and 15 delegates and still trails Obama by more than 100 elected delegates. Barring an Obama collapse in the coming months, even with her big victories in Ohio and Texas, there is virtually no way Clinton can finish with more elected delegates than Obama. So the only way she will be able to secure the nomination will be through the superdelegates, who are unelected party big shots who can vote for any candidate they choose at the convention.
If the Democratic race goes to the convention, and the nomination is given to a candidate who earned fewer voted delegates, all thanks to the largess of party insiders, the result will be catastrophic. The message such a turn of events would send to the country would only reinforce everything Americans hate about politicians (and, not incidentally, fear about Hillary Clinton), that they are self-interested and out of touch with the average citizen. It would put the Democrats on the same playing field as the Republicans' conduct in the aftermath of the 2000 election.
Maybe even worse would be the loss of morale and energy of the millions of people who turned out to vote for Obama. If your candidate wins fewer elected delegates, it's much easier to support the winner in November. But what if your candidate actually got more votes but got shafted? Talk about a problem energizing your base.
Mark my words. If Obama wins more elected delegates, but superdelegates give the nomination to Clinton, the Democratic party will descend into crisis. People will change their registrations in protest, stay at home on election day, or even vote for McCain. The result will be a comfortable win for McCain in November.
Maybe that's something that the Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas Democrats who voted for Clinton should think about as they go to sleep tonight. And it's certainly something that the Democratic voters in Pennsylvania should think of, as well as party members in the upcoming states of Wyoming, Mississippi, Guam (yes, Guam has a primary and nine delegates to the convention), Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico (if things have not been sorted out by the time Puerto Rico votes on June 7, heaven help the Democrats).
I don't think any Democrat wants to see George W. Bush in a John McCain mask running the country for the next four years. But if things continue on this path, Clinton's 2008 "comeback" might just join Dukakis, Gore and Kerry on the list of Democratic debacles.
If I'm asked to explain to someone the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, I'd rather use my father's explanation than mine. Unfortunately, Democratic primary voters aren't leaving me with that option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
