Kenneth N. Bingham & Martin H. Bingham, Contributors
Clinton and Obama
Fast-forward to January 20, 2009
"I, Barack Hussein Obama, do swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States of America ... ." Perhaps not so fast!
The Democratic Party caucuses and primaries are generating an unprecedented level of excitement not only in the United States, but worldwide. The field has whittled down to two candidates - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The 2008 Democratic nominee for president of The United States will, therefore, in all probability, be a woman or an African-American (African father, American mother). This, in itself, represents a dramatic development.
At this juncture, the momentum seems to favour Obama - a first-term senator from the state of Illinois. Clinton, New York senator and a former first lady, was until recently presumed to have the nomination all but sewn up. The Economist declared late last year that the race was "hers to lose". Now, Steven Thomma (McClatchy newspapers, February 21) pronounces, "
Hillary Clinton blew a sure thing." What is undeniable is that the Clinton campaign has come up short, so far.
Failed in message
Clinton lost 11 consecutive contests to Obama. Observers suggest that she failed in the most fundamental aspects of any campaign: message and organisation. New York Times columnist Frank Rich takes the Clinton campaign to task in his February 24 column for being, as he sees it, dismissive of Obama's message of hope and optimism. "This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language", Rich states of Clinton. Several political analysts, including CNN's Bill Schneider, have highlighted the Obama campaign's grass-roots organisation. Some, including the political news website talkingpointsmemo.com, argue that this has given him an edge in turnout. One oft-cited example is that Obama had 13,000 volunteers working on his behalf in the South Carolina primary, which far exceeded those on the Clinton side.
Perhaps the story goes a little deeper than the mechanics of organisation and message. There may well be several undercurrents operating at the micro level which when combined account, at least in part, for some of the more astonishing elements of recent results. There are several such below-the-radar issues being highlighted by some of Mrs Clinton's sympathisers. They raise an interesting set of questions. Among them: Is it easier in the United States of 2008 to elect an African-American male than it is to elect a woman, albeit a white woman? In other words: Is sexism more of a barrier to the presidency than is racism? According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, Obama is now supported by two-thirds of male Democratic voters.
Another key question relates to the Clintons themselves. They enjoyed enormous popularity. Former President Bill Clinton is the only Democrat since FDR to have won two consecutive terms. Is it possible that fellow Democrats are suffering from 'Clinton fatigue'? A senior Clinton campaign adviser is reported in a February 24, 2008 NY Times story as saying that President Clinton's, "
presence, aura and legacy caused national fatigue with the Clintons." Given the negative public sentiments towards the present White House occupant, is there a fear that a Clinton restoration could similarly be less than an optimal choice?
Victim of envy?
There exists the possibility that Americans are steering clear of an appearance of creating dynasties. It may even be that Mrs Clinton is the victim of plain envy. Her victory would be historic on several fronts. She would be the first female president and the only former first lady to be elected president. An argument has been advanced that this may account for some of the prominent defections to Mr Obama.
It is quite surprising to some that Mrs Clinton's excellent grasp of public policy issues, detailed policy proposals and her vast experience have not propelled her further along. However, a Democratic Party strategist, quoted in the McClatchy piece, argues that these are less salient attributes in the current climate. According to him, it has been evident "
for a year, at least, that if you trade experience for change, people want change over experience two to one". Another Democrat is quoted as saying that, given the public's predilections, "message based on experience was not going to work ... it was doomed to fail". We cannot yet say with any degree of certainty which factors have combined to give Mr Obama the edge. However, press reports indicate that his message accounts for a significant part of his appeal. He laid out the raisond'κtre of his campaign in one of his most acclaimed speeches, delivered to the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in November 2007: "I'm running to keep the American dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity, who thirst for equality."
'Super delegates' round
Another round in the Clinton-Obama battle will be for the so-called 'super delegates' comprising present and former elected officials and party representatives. There are 796 such delegates, representing approximately 20 per cent of the 4,000 party delegates. Given the close delegate count at this time, the 'super delegates' seem poised to play the decisive role in the selection of the party's presidential nominee. There are moves afoot to forestall this possibility. One method being explored is for delegates to accelerate their pledges of support, thereby guaranteeing that there is a clear winner before the party's convention scheduled for August 2008. Democratic Party Chairman, Howard Dean, told a television interviewer, a few days ago, that this process is already under way.
The New York Times reports in its February 15 online edition that "Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been putting on a charm offensive of phone calls and personal visits to woo the undecideds among the super delegates". Fearing that Senator Clinton may enjoy an advantage with this group, Senator Obama has argued that the delegates' votes should reflect the preferences of their constituents. Mrs Clinton has observed that, were this to be the standard, two of Obama's prominent supporters, senators Kennedy and Kerry of Massachusetts would then be required to vote in her favour. (She won the primary in Massachusetts, the state they both represent.) As in the primaries, the momentum seems to be in Obama's favour. Both the New York Times and the UK Guardian are reporting that there is movement among the super delegates towards Obama. In a February 20 column, in
The Times (UK) Gerard Baker argues that "... if he [Obama] emerges as the winner in the elected delegate count, it will be very hard for the super delegates to side with the popular vote loser". As of now, it seems that Obama is well on his way. However, the Clintons are formidable opponents. As a result, Mrs Clinton's chances cannot be discounted
just yet. The Ohio primary and the Texas caucus-primary hybrid on March 4 could prove decisive.
Kenneth N. Bingham is a consultant in human resource management and Martin H. Bingham is a political economist. They may be contacted at articles.newera@yahoo.com.
