a democratic house divided
by Jeremy P. Jacobs
Published: January 24, 2008
The Democratic primary race has become fascinating and, for Democrats, very dangerous.
The symbolic moment occurred in Tuesday’s debate. Taking heavy fire from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama was rattled. Amid a personal (and utterly disappointing) exchange, Obama said, “I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.”
Of course, Obama was referring the increasingly frequent attacks leveled against him by Clinton’s husband, the former president.
Much has been written recently about President Clinton’s role in his wife’s campaign.
The New York Times ran an article last Friday entitled, “Bill Clinton, Stumping and Simmering.” In it, Patrick Healy, the Times Clinton campaign reporter, wrote:
“Mr. Clinton’s temper has been an issue for him as long as he has been in public life. But it has played an unusual role during the current campaign, his face turning red in public nearly every week, often making headlines as he defends his wife and injects himself, whether or not intentionally, into her race in sometimes distracting ways.”
Healy also noted that Clinton’s campaign advisors are trying to rein him in, but his anger keeps surfacing.
Could it be (oh could it be), that we’ve been duped by the former president once again?
President Clinton has a history of using his temper in pivotal moments, to accomplish specific aims. In his book on Clinton’s White House years, The Survivor, current Politico editor John Harris noted a scene at the Israel/Palestine summit Clinton held at Camp David in his presidency’s final year.
The summit was hastily called and moved very slowly. Clinton was lobbying one of Yasser Arafat’s aides, when the aide responded with dilatory tactics. Clinton exploded.
“This outburst was startling. Clinton threw fits of temper all the time back at the White House, in the company of his own staff. But rarely did he show that side with others, least of all in a diplomatic setting,” Harris wrote. Later he asked, “Was this authentic anger or a performance?”
Harris asked National Security Advisor and Clinton intimate Sandy Berger what he thought of the outburst. Berger, Harris wrote, “believed that ‘he used anger in a very calculated way.’”
Later in the summit, Clinton again blew up, this time at Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak later offered the most concessions Israel has ever put on the table in its negotiations with Palestinians.
So what has Clinton’s anger accomplished this time?
Simply put, Obama has fallen into the trap of slugging it out with Bill instead of Hillary.
“The former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling,” Obama said Monday on Good Morning America. “He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts… This has become a habit, and one of the things that we’re gonna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he’s making statements that are not factually accurate.”
And confront him he has, much to the demise of his own campaign. “Clinton’s No. 1 Surrogate Clashes with No. 1 Rival,” read the headline of a New York Times article.
Now, why does this work for Sen. Clinton’s campaign? First, it has knocked Obama off message. His line about Clinton “sitting on the board of Wal-Mart” in Tuesday’s debate was precisely the type of personal attack politics he had vowed his campaign would not practice.
Second, it has allowed Sen. Clinton to get out of South Carolina. She has left Obama with Bill in a state where she can’t win. When Obama wins, her campaign will say Obama won because 50 percent of the Democratic party in South Carolina is black. Even Bill Clinton, who is widely popular with Black voters, couldn’t woo voters away from him.
Third, Sen. Clinton looks real good for Super Tuesday. As Thomas Edsall wrote on the Huffintgon Post, Nevada entrance polls show drastic splits among Democratic voters. Fifty-nine percent of caucus goers were women and Clinton carried them 51 to 38 percent. Obama received more support from men by just two points (45 to 43).
Obama killed Clinton in the African American vote (15 percent of caucus goers), 83 to 14.
But Clinton struck right back by taking the Latino voter (also 15 percent) 64 to 38.
White Democrats also backed Clinton 52 to 34.
The only other demographic dominated by Obama was the young voter; historically an unreliable base. Older voters, on the other hand, back Clinton.
So why is all this fascinating? Because if Obama pulls out the nomination it would be a miracle. When was the last time a candidate was swept into office by cornering the market for college age students and African Americans?
And why is it so dangerous? Because if the Nevada primary repeats itself throughout the rest of the country, then whoever wins the nomination runs the risk of seriously disenfranchising large groups of voters. A Clinton victory leaves African Americans and younger voters slighted. While if Obama wins the nomination, it will be in spite of older, white voters and Latinos. Either outcome could weaken the Democratic party base enough to allow a Republican to exploit the division and take the White House.
Either outcome could tear the party apart.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
