Obama no better than Kerry
It’s long been my opinion if Hillary Clinton could be appointed president, nobody could do the job better. In a parliamentary system, she’d stand an excellent chance of becoming prime minister, since political parties tend to select leaders more on competence than the dubious skills of a game show host.
Like Al Gore, Clinton’s seen by friends as warm, funny and empathetic. She does better in small groups and town hall-type events than in large arenas. Also like Gore, she’s motivated more by duty than most politicians. Unfriendly eyes see her determination as “entitlement.” Misogyny runs deeper in American culture than many admit; brainy women are seen as unnatural. The camera doesn’t love her the way it loves Sen. Barack Obama.
Too, Clinton’s candidacy has labored under the manifest disadvantage of the Beltway media’s unreasoning hatred of her husband, the virulence of which continues to amaze. In Arkansas, some think it’s rooted in resentment that some smooth-talking, white-trash hayseed from the American outback could become president. In Washington, it’s whispered that Hillary’s unresponsiveness to certain socially prominent hostesses made them loathe her. Who knows?
And yet Hillary keeps chugging along like The Little Engine That Could, defying increasingly shrill demands that she quit. Weeks before the Indiana primary, Obama described it as the potential “tiebreaker.” Then he went out and lost it. Nevertheless, all but openly gloating, NBC’s Tim Russert took it upon himself to announce, “We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it.”
Hillary didn’t help herself with an infelicitous demographic allusion, citing an AP article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support … among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” This prompted even so normally sensible an observer as my good friend Joe Conason to compare her to George Wallace. So did New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who’s been fanning the racial flames since Obama’s New Hampshire loss.
Many citizens who would vote for an African-American without a second thought are put off by a candidate who makes race the central issue of his campaign. Winning tactic, losing strategy.
Screaming “racist” at people — I’ve received a grand total of two e-mails from Obama supporters that didn’t — only makes things worse. Real bigots don’t care, while Clinton supporters increasingly resent the accusation. Regardless of why working-class white voters don’t support Obama, no Democrat can win without them.
Can anybody name two states Obama can win that John Kerry lost in 2004? Supporters normally duck the question with effusive references to massive voter turnout, which the blogger “Anglachel” parodies.
For all the “crowing about what a superdoublewidefantastic party organization The Precious has built, how it’s cool and digital and virtual and full of lots and lots of bloggers and money. … All of which makes me go so where were those voters in Indiana? Pennsylvania? … His efforts didn’t make a difference for him in Ohio, Texas, Massachusetts or California. … The fact is that the contest this year as such, not just Obama, is bringing out a huge number of voters, and half of them are voting for Hillary.”
Meanwhile, I’m hearing increasing numbers of Clinton supporters, passionate Democrats all, say they cannot vote for Obama. And that’s a very worrying sign.
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette columnist Gene Lyons can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].