It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the electability tit-for-tat between Obama and Clinton last week would continue in today's debate. Electability has almost always played a key role in Democratic presidential nomination contests and, although it does seem to be playing less of a role in 2008 than 2004, until Democrats are viewed by the country as the "natural" governing party again, it will never go away entirely. Currently, it is entirely possible that a significant portion of Clinton's national advantage over Obama is derived from, as I discussed on Thursday, the rank and file's perception that she is more electable than Obama.
In this morning's debate, George Stephanopoulos wasted no time bringing up last week's exchanges on electability, with the question first directed to Obama:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the Associated Press this week wrote an article. They talked to 40 Democratic activists and officeholders across the country. It led to the series of headlines across the country: "Democrats worry Clinton may weigh down lesser candidates"; "Democrats worry Clinton may hurt the rest of the ticket." Are they right to be worried?
OBAMA: You know, I think Senator Clinton and all the candidates up here are capable. And whoever wins the general election I believe -- whoever wins the primary I believe is going to win the general election.(…)
What I'm suggesting is that we're going to need somebody who can break out of the political patterns that we've been in over the last 20 years. And part of that is the notion that half the country's on one side; the other half's on the other. You maybe have a few people in Iowa or a few people in Ohio and Florida who we're all battling over, and afterwards, we can't govern.
Now, here is what Senator Obama actually said, according to the nifty campaign translation device I just purchased. Everyone here can win the general election, but I can win by the biggest margin and with the longest coattails and thus ensure the strongest governing majority. A narrow, swing-state based victory is not enough, and with her high unfavorables that is probably the best Senator Clinton can do.
At lest to date, polling supports Obama's position on this, although that could change. However, In response, Senator Clinton said the following:
Well, I don't think Karl Rove's going to endorse me. That becomes more and more obvious. But I find it interesting he's so obsessed with me. And I think the reason is because... (LAUGHTER) ...we know how to win. I mean, you know, I have been fighting against these people for longer than anybody else up here. I've taken them on and we've beaten them.
And I'm very excited about my campaign. I had 18 wonderful years in Arkansas. I'll be there tomorrow, where the governor will be endorsing me. I've had wonderful experiences in upstate New York, where many of the people who voted for me had never voted for a Democrat before. And you know, the idea that you're going to escape the Republican attack machine and not have high negatives by the time they're through with you, I think, is just missing what's been going on in American politics for the last 20 years.
Now, here are Senator Clinton's comments on electability when put through the campaign translation device. Everyone up here says they can win. However, after the Republican Noise Machine gets through with them, who knows? We all thought Kerry could win, too. The difference is that I am a Clinton, and I have already beaten that machine. Thus you know I can win.
Beyond identifying their specific electability arguments, which are fairly predictable and which those of us online have read repeatedly for over six months now, there is another interesting aspect to this electability argument between Clinton and Obama. Specifically, Clinton is actually coming at Obama from a partisan angle, and possibly even from Obama's left. As Jerome notes at MyDD, while Obama's rhetoric is couched in a language of bi-partisan unity, Clinton's is overtly partisan and anti-vast right wing conspiracy:
That's it in a nutshell, on Clinton vs Obama: pragmatic partisanship that wins vs the hope for an idealistic bipartisan politics, isn't it?
I think this is a potentially crushing blow from the Clinton campaign, one that exposes a weakness in Obama's campaign rhetoric thus far. Basically, on electability, Clinton is able to hit Obama from a partisan, left-wing, anti-Republican direction, while Obama is stuck holding the bag of theoretical bi-partisan unity. Clinton's position is clearly a superior one to be in during a Democratic primary campaign, as it helps rile up the base behind her and close off her left flank that earlier in the campaign Edwards and Obama had been able to exploit. The difference in Obama and Clinton's rhetoric has allowed Clinton to shore up her left-wing support through process stories, making further left-ward turns on policy unnecessary in order to maintain her primary advantage. (Of course, that is also helped because neither Obama nor Edwards will go the route of no residual forces, single-payer health care, or carbon tax, three of the key potential left-wing positions for Democrats in this campaign). This is pure genius from the Clinton camp, and not just because that is what I told the Clinton campaign to do back on Wednesday. By taking this partisan route, Clinton is able to rile up the base, and take a centrist (or, at best, center-left) set of policy positions for the general. Even though I have been leaning in his direction more and more these days (I bounce around a lot), I have to admit that this puts Obama in a real bind, one from which no clear escape is apparent.
|
