There is something of the dawn about him
Ramesh THAKUR
`
Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton participate in a debate in the Lyndon B. Johnson
Auditorium at the University of Texas on February 21. Getty
Images/AFP
|
One of the biggest international stories so far this year has been
the rise and rise of Barack Obama. Its twin is the collapse of Hillary
Clinton’s campaign. She now has the unmistakable air of a loser as the
aura of inevitability and the mystique of invincibility give way to a
scramble for relevance. Perhaps she is learning the meaning of the
audacity of hope.
One former British politician said famously and damning of another
that there was something of the night about him. There truly is
something of the dawn about Obama. He has been able to shine light on
the dark landscape of despair and self-doubt afflicting the country.
His launch of a presidential bid a year ago was indeed audacious, yet
his vision of hope seems set to triumph over her claims of experience.
Hillary Clinton has lost what was her greatest asset a year ago - her
aura of inevitability - leaving her campaign sputtering and imploding
like a falling star while Obama is still building his head of steam.
Obama has momentum, money and media. Tellingly, all the television
networks cut off Clinton in mid-sentence on Tuesday night in order to
switch to Obama’s rousing rally speech when he declared “Houston, we
have liftoff.”
He beat her by a margin of 17 points, 58-41. Astonishingly, that is
the closest Clinton has come in his string of 10 galloping victories on
the trot. Later the same night, in Hawaii, he beat her 76-24.
Obama’s margin over Clinton in Wisconsin was about the same as
Senator John McCain’s over Governor Mike Huckabee (55-37). In other
words, Clinton is as formidable a foe as Huckabee after McCain’s
candidacy is assured.
What makes this even more memorable is that Wisconsin is her natural
demographic turf: a preponderance of blue collar White voters in a State
with a strong industrial base. It should have played to Ms Clinton’s
core strengths: 60 per cent women, 90 per cent White, 40 per cent on
income below $50,000, and almost 60 per cent without a college degree.
Instead, about the only reliable cohort left for Ms Clinton is White
women over 65, who do not a majority make. He either led comfortably or
pulled almost even with her in all other demographic groups.
She tried everything in Wisconsin. Her attacks on his eloquence make
her sound small-minded. In a sure fire call on the losing candidate’s
last card, she accused him of cowardice in not engaging in another
debate.
He parried with the reminder of 18 debates already held and another
two scheduled.
She accused him of plagiarism yet ducked the question of guaranteeing
she had not lifted material from others, arguing that the charge was
relevant only against Obama for he relied on words as his prime
narrative, and therefore it mattered that the words were not his.
Most importantly, Clinton has become a prisoner of her own
meta-narrative that has failed to excite the voters while Obama has
tapped into a deep yearning for change from the politics of mutual
destruction to one of a calling for a higher shared purpose.
By caricaturing any questioning of his naivete rooted in inexperience
as an attack on hope-mongering - “they say I need to spend some more
time in Washington so that I can be seasoned and stewed until the hope
has been boiled out of me to prepare me for being President” - he turned
around the charge. Ms Clinton became the wicked witch of the West bent
on destroying hope. Yet the criticism of Obama being light on experience
is not unfounded.
The problem for Clinton was worsened by her own fairytale claims of
35 years of experience.
This, to put it politely, is a stretch, both a numerical and
terminological inexactitude.
Her one executive-level experience during Bill Clinton’s presidency
was to be put in charge of healthcare reform which went down in flames.
Her management style contributed to the epic train wreck. As a
Senator, her major legislative accomplishments seem to have been to
rename post offices after sundry people. Even more tellingly, on a core
issue with the party’s core constituency, namely Iraq, the boast of
decades of experience was trumped by Obama claiming to have the right
judgment.
Clinton’s inability to acknowledge and apologise for that mistake is
doubly damaging. It underscores widely held perceptions of her as a
focus group driven and calculating politician while reinforcing his
claims as a conviction leader. And the tortured explanation, that she
was wrong to trust George W. Bush, is disingenuous and undermines her
entire claim to be ready to take charge on day one.
The experience-equals-competence meta-narrative has been disproved
also with the ineptitude and turmoil engulfing Clinton’s campaign
against the professionalism and self-assurance of the Obama express. Her
entire organisational and financial effort was predicated on triumph by
Super Tuesday on February 5. That night’s results marked the end.
The results of this Tuesday might mark the beginning of the end.
Until Feb. 5, Clinton and Obama had duelled to a draw in their
respective grand coalitions of women, the elderly, White blue collar
workers and rural Democrats against African-Americans, young voters and
the high income and educated Whites. Obama’s rout in Virginia and
Maryland a week later showed the first cracks in Clinton’s coalition.
Wisconsin on Feb. 19 confirmed the cracks are widening, his
demographic disadvantages are disappearing and Clinton is at risk of
being deluged by Obamania.
Then there was the experience-equals-resilience argument (tested,
vetted and investigated): tough enough to have beaten back numerous
attacks from the Republicans. Voters show a hunger to move beyond this
take-no-prisoners style of politics as a contact sport. And it once
again reinforced her negative image as willing to say and do anything to
recapture the White House.
When voters are warming to Mr. Obama’s promise of unifying the nation
and healing the wounds, she guarantees divisiveness and polarisation
from day one.
Clinton’s refusal to release tax returns and donors to her husband’s
various activities added to the unease of voters about rolling the dice
on another Clinton administration. And so they rejected the coronation
of the Clintons option and embraced Obama’s call for change instead.
On electability, as McCain began to emerge as the presumptive
Republican nominee, Clinton’s negatives came to the fore while Obama’s
positives were accentuated. McCain’s experience in and of Washington
politics is longer, genuine and more substantial than Clinton’s. Having
run her entire primary on this meta-narrative, she could not change it
in the election campaign.
Obama offers the starker alternative on Iraq. Clinton will lack
credibility on national security and as commander-in-chief in waiting
against a genuine war hero; Obama can change the storyline by
emphasising judgment and the use of force against the real enemy, at the
right time, in the right place.
In the latest opinion polls, on average Obama beats McCain by 5.5
points, Clinton loses by 4.5 points. In Wisconsin, Democratic voters
believed, 63-37, that Obama is more likely than Clinton to beat McCain.
Significantly, Obama received a total of 646,000 Wisconsin votes against
403,000 for all the Republican candidates combined.
Ironically, Obama’s campaign has relied on the insight of Karl Rove,
the architect of President Bush’s victories.
Clinton’s strategy of triangulation has aimed to capture the middle
ground.
But the pool of voters there is small and shrinking. Rove’s strategy
was to energise the core Republican base (for which Clinton - any
Clinton - as the opponent would be a gift).
Obama has done brilliantly in attracting new voters to the primaries
and caucuses in record numbers - yet without losing independents and
centrists.
Can Ohio and Texas revive Clinton’s campaign, or has she run out of
time, arguments, money, primaries and even respect as she launches
negative attacks ?
Obama leads her on votes: 10-9 million; on delegates count:
1187-1028, or 1360-1266 including committed super-delegates (using Real
Clear Politics calculations); in national opinion polls: 46.0-41.8 on
average; and in number of States won: 24-13. The average margin of his
victory over Clinton in the last 10 successive wins, not weighting for
populations, is 36.6 per cent.
He is sounding and looking increasingly presidential; she looks
exhausted and sounds increasingly desperate. McCain clearly believes
that Obama is pulling ahead.
Clinton’s choice is to withdraw with grace and humility and live to
fight another day, or to go for a do-or-die scorched earth policy on
March 4 and ruin her prospects of becoming an elder Senator aiming for a
legacy of substantial legislative accomplishments.
Negative attacks and hints of convention skulduggery by Clinton
reinforce her image of ruthlessness and win-at-any-price ambition.
Negative attacks on Obama are deflected by decrying the same old
politics of bar room brawling.
Obama’s uplifting cathartic speeches have been met by confused and
continually shifting messages; the positive energy of “Yes we can” with
the negative refrain of “No you can’t” (subtext: it’s my turn, you get
back in line). Her performance in the Texas debate on Thursday night
seemed to hint at a graceful valedictory concession - and earned her the
night’s only standing ovation.
Ramesh Thakur is Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for International
Governance Innovation and Professor of Political Science at the
University of Waterloo
The Hindu
|