Convential wisdom - a challenge

by Don Wheeler

There is the assertion, virtually unchallenged, that the continuing nomination fight and the divisions created by it, are seriously harming the chances of the Democratic nominee.

Since the nominee is pretty much known at this point, I find all the hand-wringing a bit curious.

Democracy is not a neat process. Dictatorships are, Monarchies are - but we claim we don't like these.

It's my view the contest should continue until one person can claim the number of pledged delegates necessary to win nomination. That shows a confidence in the system and trust in our fellow citizens. It also allows the Obama campaign to show confidence and generosity of spirit. They have a big problem, but it isn't this.

Their big problem is a segment of their own supporters.

These folks, who tend to be loud and often confrontational, have spread two myths which are damaging to Obama's general election campaign.

Myth #1

Barack Obama is a progressive. Everything is relative, I suppose, but if one looks at the policy proposals made by the field of Democratic candidates - Obama's are clearly the most conservative. People often confuse populism with progressivism, but Mr. Obama can't reasonably be classified as anything left of a moderate.

Witness his own actions and statements:

During Barack Obama’s Sunday appearance on Fox News, the interviewer (Chris Wallace) asked him for an example of “a hot-button issue where you would be willing to buck the Democratic Party line” and say that Republicans have the better idea.Mr. Obama’s answer was puzzling because he gave
credit where it isn’t due — and thereby undermined what could be a very effective Democratic line of argument.

In particular, Mr. Obama attributed to Republicans the idea that regulation can be flexible rather than a matter of “top-down command and control,” and in particular for the idea of controlling
pollution with a system of tradable emission permits rather than rigid regulations.

(from Paul Krugman's "Party of Denial" column)


In addition - in Nevada, ahead of the caucuses, Mr. Obama praised Ronald Reagan's leadership abilities. Later, a chief advisor of his reassured the Canadian government that they shouldn't worry too much about Mr. Obama's stated goal of reopening NAFTA. He has also derided the Clinton Health Proposal (The Edwards Health Proposal to many of us) for it's mandates to include all citizens as a "big government" intrusion.

It seems pretty clear that these supporters are not on the same page as their candidate.

Their claims make him a fatter target for the SOP of the GOP that Obama is "too far out of the mainstream" (fill in the blank). This perception has probably had some effect already. Almost 90% of self-described "working class" Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters went for Hillary Clinton. (A bit ironic, since her proposals are at least a bit more progressive.) In the end though, it was probably myth #2 that made them the most nervous.

Myth #2

Barack Obama is something approaching a Deity. We're all grownups here, so I don't need dig too deeply to disprove this one - I suspect.

Many of us were inspired by John Edwards' vision, so I don't mean to disparage the notion of seeing someone as a transformational figure. But fervent Edwards supporters (while liking the man) were enthused about what he wants to do. For these Obama supporters I'm speaking of, it's mostly about who Obama is. This attitude was most unhelpful when Barack Obama had to address charges of elitism.

This is not a line of contention likely to win over folks who are preoccupied with the concerns of day-to-day, paycheck-to-paycheck living. In fact, I suspect it would make people in this group pretty wary. It makes me wary, in fact.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would
mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence
does not.

Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.Tellingly, the Obama
campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.

During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run — but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.

No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has
dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?

(Paul Krugman: "Self-inflicted Confusion")

This group of voters is probably the easiest for McCain to try to peel away, so the Obama strategists better take this challenge seriously.

At least they have the luxury of a pretty weak and inept opponent.