Buried at the end of a rather silly Washington Post story by Kevin Merida that compared the Democratic primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama first to boxing (it quoted Angelo Dundee, famous trainer of Muhammed Ali on what strategy and tactics each campaign is using or should use, for chrissakes) and then to a chess match, is a quote from former House Democratic Whip, David Bonior of Michigan. Bonior managed John Edwards campaign, and he was asked who should be the party’s nominee. He declined to pick either Clinton or Obama, possibly because Edwards himself has not yet endorsed either of them for the nomination. But he did have this to say about a possibile scenario where Obama maintains his lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote but is not selected as the party’s candidate at the convention in Denver:
“. . . I see that as a problem. A big problem, by the way.”
I have no idea if this mean Edwards is leaning toward Obama. Frankly I doubt it has any significance regarding any future endorsement. Edwards has been playing his cards close to his vest, so I suspect Bonior was simply talking for himself. But I also believe that Bonior is simply stating the truth. If Obama comes to the convention with more delegates and having won the popular vote, and Senator Clinton is “awarded” the nomination because she has created the perception among the super delegates that Obama is “damaged goods” (thanks to her own “kitchen sink” tactics), or is “unelectable” because he doesn’t pass some nebulous “experience” test, or for some other reason (whatever that may be), all hell will break loose.
Such a result will fracture the Democratic party far worse than in 1968 when Humphrey won the nomination at the convention alienating the antiwar and youth vote. And far worse than in 1980, when the battle royale between President Carter and Ted Kennedy during the primary season paved the way for Ronald Reagan’s election.
If Clinton is the nominee a large portion of African American electorate are likely to sit this election out, as will many of the young people Obama has attracted to his campaign in droves this year. Many progressives who comprise the activist base, will also be tempted to sit out this election seeing little difference between the likely policies of a President Clinton versus a President McCain, seeing as both have deep ties to corporate lobbyists and “special interests” and both are likely to keep substantial numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come. Even many activists who will vote for her would do so with an utter lack of enthusiasm, and would lend little other than their votes to her campaign. Certainly not their money or their volunteer efforts.
The Clinton nomination would also energize the conservative base of the Republican party. Voters who are not particularly fond of Senator McCain would be more than happy to cast a vote against “Hillary” if she becomes the Democratic nominee. The effect on down ticket races would be substantial, as increased turnout among Republican voters combined with a stagnant Democratic turnout would seriously undermine the chance to increase Democratic majorities in Congress.
This effect would be exacerbated by the likely manner in which Clinton would run her campaign, abandoning Howard Dean’s “50 state” strategy and emphasizing only those states which she believes she needs to win, essentially the Kerry states plus Ohio and/or Florida. A strategy, by the way that has failed in the last two Presidential elections (Gore and Kerry), and was only successful for Bill Clinton in 1992 because of the happy circumstance of Ross Perot’s third party bid, which drained Republican and moderate/independent votes from Bush Senior. Senator Clinton’s campaign would be a “top down” highly centralized affair, and would likely rely on the same negative ads and other rough tactics that she employed against Obama. Except Senator McCain would not be acting as her tag team partner this time, helping to assail Obama in order to keep Clinton’s campaign viable so as to weaken whomever he faces this Fall. And make no mistake, he and the Republican operatives would much prefer to run against Clinton. Indeed, it’s his best chance to occupy the oval office and he knows it.
Let us hope that saner heads prevail. If Obama comes to the convention with more pledged delegates and having won the popular vote, he should be the nominee. If he isn’t . . . ?
