Do Democrats Fear Winning?

CBS's Dick Meyer Examines The Party's Latest Brand Of Self-Defeating Tactics

(CBS)  This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.

---

The Democratic Party is choking.

Facing nothing but open field ahead, the team can’t get the ball in the end zone. The incumbent Republican president’s unpopularity is historically high. The country is opposed to the Iraq war and worried about the recession. Gas prices are heading toward $4 a gallon. John McCain, the Republican nominee, is the oldest presidential nominee in history.

But the Democrats can’t score. They’re not even on the field yet. They’re still stuck in the locker room of the primaries, bickering.

The veteran offensive line, the Clintonistas, won’t block for the young players at the skill positions, the Obamists. They have the ball and are perfectly poised to fumble.

In sports, there are always “gimme the ball” players, the super-confident stars who want the ball with three seconds left in the game. Clinton and Obama want the ball, alright, but the rest of the team doesn’t really want to win or know how to win. They’re choking.

This is pretty much the natural order of modern politics.

When I first started covering national politics for CBS News 23 years ago, the Democrats were coming off an especially inept performance in the 1984 campaign. The “Atari Democrat,” Gary Hart, was the man of new ideas and a disposition inclined against the party’s interest group establishment. Walter Mondale was the establishment. They bled each other through a long primary season and establishment managed to keep Hart down. The voters kept Mondale way down in November.

Since then, the party has continued to create rules (proportional representation) that encourage long, bloody primaries.

What’s very different about 2008 is that the Democrats in 1984 really never had a prayer against Ronald Reagan. In 2008, conditions are perfect for a Democratic victory. Only the hapless Democrats could blow this lead.

The primary campaign is now guaranteed to run for a few more months. Considering that the campaign basically began full-time in late November 2004, this has been by far the longest nominee selection marathon in history. It is a race that will likely sap the strength and enthusiasm of a once excited and bloodthirsty electorate of Democrats and independents. Despite the fact that there is not an especially wide policy gulf between the two candidates, the party could be divided when the primaries are over. Certainly the winner will be bloody against a healthy John McCain.

One obvious, but politically incorrect and cynical point is that it was always a very high-risk proposition for the party to nominate a woman or a black. As historically significant and uplifting as it is to shatter an old and embarrassing barrier, it is a risky way for a political party to seize power. No one has a clue what will happen with a white woman or a black man at the top of the ticket. But sending an unknown brand of warrior into battle against a uniquely weak enemy doesn’t make sense if you’ve been losing a long war.

Nor does carrying on with a flawed, Byzantine nomination process that encourages divineness, manipulation and tediousness.

The Democrats seem to have either a political death-wish or a dire fear of success. Don’t give us the ball, please. We’re happy to be the opposition party.

This begs a question: is there something about contemporary Democratism that is simply unsuited to governance? Is the party semi-dysfunctional because it lacks a philosophic core that is simple, sensible and attractive? Or is it just something about the personality of Democrats?

The country obviously wants an alternative to Bushism. It might well settle for McCainism.

---

This will be my last "Against the Grain" column. After 23 years at CBS News, I am moving my computer to National Public Radio. I hope to resume a column at NPR.org after I settle in and it may even reappear here eventually. If you would like to receive an e-mail when I start back up, send a note to Against the Grain. It has been a great privilege to write in this space for so many years, thank you.

[zorlacskates]

oh, just shut up. the democrats have two very popular, very competitive candidates, both of whom will destroy mccain. the right doesn''t even like the guy they nominated, and this clown is complaining because the left is passionate about both of their candidates? suddenly competition is a bad thing? here comes the media and their absurd pseudo-insight and senseless shiit-stirring...

[irliberal]

Good job zorl....I couldn''t have said it any better!

As a new voter brought in to politics by Obama, I must agree with the writer. The Dems clearly don''t know how to assemble a coordinated defense of democratic principles. Its the same in Congress, since the Dems won both houses...lots of proclaimations but no results. It is now obvious why the governer of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, ran as a republican even though his basic values are very left leaning.

[stephanienym]

I''m glad this writer is leaving CBS, like usual his views are warped...

[darrren12000]

The Dems are pathetic. We will lose. Obama''s magic wand will not erase what is the pathetic truth about the Dems: we LOSE LOSE AND LOSE. it''s awful.

obama had a shot - but his people were intent on maximizing votes by keeping him undefined. he was supposedly against the war, but he has voted with clinton on every war bill since then. he is angry about nafta, but is not protectionist. he wants public campaign financing, but now he has to negotiate it. There is a pattern: he is either so close to clinton that it''s indistinguishable or he is undefined or a flip-flopper. So it is unclear what people get with him.

Clinton had a chance. In fact, she was the clear front-runner for a long time. She ran on "experience" but didnt really detail it enough. She also didnt counter the hope message adequately. And she became horrified when the media and Obama''s handlers would twist everything she said into some racist attack. I would have had my handlers go back and slam them for this. Of course that''s part of the problem - the Dems and the white boyz in the media colluded and maligned Clinton in ways I have never seen in a presidential campaign. STRIKE THAT: Howard Dean got similar treatment. So basically, they took a very strong candidate and stabbed her endlessly. AS A RESULT, we now have two weakened candidates and a very divided party.

GO DEMOCRATS WIL LOSE AGAINST AN HISTORICALLY WEAKENED REP. PARTY. WHAT A JOKE.

[b-easy63]

"The Democrats seem to have either a political death-wish or a dire fear of success. Don%u2019t give us the ball, please. We%u2019re happy to be the opposition party. This begs a question: is there something about contemporary Democratism that is simply unsuited to governance? "

I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. From the outset, idealistic though it is, I said that pitting 2 unknowns (a woman or minority) against each other for the highest job in the land, when we are in 2 wars and have devastating inflation, high gas prices and a recession--is foolhardy. This was not the time for something new. This was the time for something stable, reliable and definitely NOT Republican.

But here we are. Now the stakes are radical change and socialism under Hilary or modified socialism lite under Obama or the stable, yet predictably slow disaster of McCain. A lose, lose, lose all the way around. Voters has to decide who is the most controllable, the more trustworthy, and the more likely to every once and while--throw us a bone. Here''s a clue-Hillary--by dint of her personality and track record--is already out of this running. That leaves Obama and McCain. If Hilary gets the office--Democrats will rue the day. She is the left''s equivalent of Bush.

[excoachken]

Do Democrats fear winning? The answer is a definite yes, since the candidate with the best chance to defeat the Republican war machine was John Edwards and the Dems let Oprah talk them out of it.

[goldesprit]

I think it was Bill Clinton that said candidly to someone that De,ocrats want to fall in love -- and Republicans want to fall in line.

[barbaraf4]

From the beginning, I have believed this election would end up exactly where it is. I suggested that at a time when Democrats really, really needed to stomp the GOP into the ground, it would be a costly mistake to experiment with having a Black man (no offense) or a White woman (no offense) as Democratic candidates.

The first time I mentioned this on one of the blogs, I was accused of being racist. Now, I can say I told you so.

[antoniof123]

I think anyone who comes along next should fear winning the Republicans have made such a mess that it should scare them.

But then again they did the same thing with MaCarthy and the Democrats had to clean it up. Maybe it is a good thing because when the blood bath takes place in November the next President will take more care to not act against the American people.

[Gary Kempf]

*** Meyer has a problem with democrats winning, he has a problem qualifying as a reporter. Much less writing a commentary. Tell us ***, did your 5 year old grand daughter have to explain to you the difference between a democrat and a republican? Did she have to speak slowly so she wouldn''t lose you during her explaination? Or did she have resort to using her stuffed animals, so you had something tangible to watch so you could actually comprehend something. The most pathedic thing about your commentary is the fact that you would dare iqnore this economic nightmare the United States is facing,and compare this election to some kind of game!!! Stick your Republican views up your a**!

[cbsblogger]

The Democratic Congress has projected impotence instead of effectiveness. I believe the root cause was because Pelosi took impeachment off the table. That neutralized any negotiating position that they would have with Bush.

Had they gone forward with an impeachment trial and got testimony from all those administration officials that Bush has blocked from testifying, there is a good chance that even the Republicans in the Senate would have voted to convict to cover their own backside.

The bottom line is that %u201Ctaking impeachment off the table" was a foolish move that has led to the Democratic Congress looking ineffective.

And an additional 3 months of infighting with the candidates may end up making them both look unsuitable.

[tomtomasters]

What''s with you ***? I don''t see Republicans running a first time woman President. I don''t see Republicans running a first time Black Candidate nomination. In fact I don''t see much of anything new about Republicans with their murder and Empire Utopian madness. Republicans are voting in an old geeser, that still clings to Vietnam. In fact he still thinks he is in Vietnam, and he''s wondering where did all the trees go in Iraq? Let''s ask Johnny come lately what he knows about building 7 demolition on 911. Let''s ask Johnny boy where those Weapons of Mass Destruction are! eh!

[mbcsmith]

Let''''s ask Johnny come lately what he knows about building 7 demolition on 911. Let''''s ask Johnny boy where those Weapons of Mass Destruction are! eh!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by tomtomasters at 09:13 AM : Mar 06, 2008


Are LIBS afraid of winning? Nope, with freaks like this, they just don''t get the support of the people.

[tomtomasters]

You can''t even write Meyers first name without it being censored. What does that tell us about him and Cheney?

[mbcsmith]

The Democratic Congress has projected impotence instead of effectiveness. I believe the root cause was because Pelosi took impeachment off the table. That neutralized any negotiating position that they would have with Bush.
Posted by cbsblogger at 09:12 AM : Mar 06, 2008

Bush has bitc*slapped the LIBS all over town because they don''t stand for anything. Impeachment? LOL, you people just have HATRED and obstructionism on your side. Nothing else.

[tulcak]

but, its not about winning is it? its about what is the right thing to do, and doing the right thing for our country... this is a concept that is foreign to republicans, and, obviously Mr. Meyer. This is precisely what is wrong with our political process - instead of working together to make real changes that are good for our country, the republicans are waging an all out war for power - and they don''t care about the consequences. One good example is global warming... flying in the face of overwhelming scientific fact, they deny its existence because their party denies it. why do they deny it? because Al Gore is the voice of warning - and they can''t give credit to a democrat for doing such a noble act and sacrificing his life to help us all solve this problem that will in the end destroy civilization

[harp1963]

Coming in after George Bush and six years of a Greedapublican majority regime in Congress and Senate would be frightening to the greatest leaders in the history of the world. Plus, the Greedapublicans have shown a capacity to do almost anything, no matter how unethical, for the love of money.

-- We didn''t attack the Nation that has provided terrorists to attack our citizen at home and abroad.....Saudi Arabia.

-- We let the family of Osama Bin Laden leave America after 9/11. Why weren''t they sent to Guantanamo Bay, tortured, and held as bargining chips.

-- Lastly, we attacked Iraq, and preplanned that attack way before 9/11. The only logical reason way for their oil.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

And regardless of how great President Ford''s presidency was, he was always loyal to the Republican Party, never criticized anyone publically, but on the man''s death bed he states for the record George Bush was the worst President in the history of the United States. That''s all I need to know about the situation of whoever is the poor schmuck who wins this Presidency.

[cbs_oliver]

The Democrats are struggling to take back their party from the Hillary Republican Lite wing.

It will be a fight and will take some time.

[antizion]

RE-ELECT NOBODY! Especially Hillary.

America is tired of the Bush Clinton crime syndicate working under Rockafeller. We will no longer accept stolen elections and an organized crime syndicate in the white house.

In order for Clinton to win, she would still need nearly 100% of all delegates. Obama would need about 72%.

HILLARY IS OVER. Thank God.

[blazercoach1]

Yes, they do fear winning. Clinton is the perfect exapmle: When she''s in the lead, she can''t "fight" because it''s not the dignified thing to do from a position of advantage. Unfortunately, she doesn''t know how to do anything else BUT demonize and attack.

But as the underdog.....you can scratch, claw, lie, do ANYTHING to tear down the one on top. This is what Democrats do exceedingly well. Find a scape-goat with title or power, and tear them down.

But what happens when THEY are in power or in front? They don''t have anyone left to tear down or blame! (Take a look at them now that they''re in control of Congress. Without anyone to tear down or blame, they can''t get ANYTHING done!)

The Democrats are arm-chair quarterbacks suddenly thrown into the game. Suddenly things looked alot easier from the sideline.

[Razzl]

Congratulations, Myer, you''ve just demoted yourself from clueless journalist to village idiot. I''m flabbergasted to be reading a CBS journalist telling women and blacks they shouldn''t even have considered running for president this year. So much for the American dream, the rights and obligations of citizenship, and equal opportunity. You don''t belong at NPR, you belong sitting next to Lou Dobbs taking your turn raving and drooling...

[jackie0428]

*** Meyer did a great job here of articulating what millions of us are thinking but perhaps feel is too "non-PC" to say. As a proud Republican, I need to let you Dems in on something: this divisiveness and wrangling and bickering and unfocused approach of the Democrats does NOT come as a surprise to historically informed Republicans. No. Rather, it is what we have been expecting and waiting for months to occur. It was just a matter of time before the Dem leaders and shakers started tearing themselves apart. Only the Democrats could figure out how to pull defeat from the jaws of victory in a year like this. Heck, McCain may be able to stop campaigning for a few months and go golfing now, and he''ll still likely win. This is about as humorous as it gets, folks.

[afmca]

The trouble with journalists today is that they want to make the news instead of reporting it. The Repubs do what they almost always do and annoint their successor. Their race was old, tired, and totally devoid of any new ideas. Why have issues with Democrats that want to have a robust vetting of candidates and ideas? There is no need to fret as the Repubs are self destructing on all fronts without any assistance from the Democrats. There is no need to attack McCain because he offers nothing better than Bush anyway. This protracted contest keeps Democrats in the news in a more positive light. I know the journalists want the start the mudslinging of the real campaign, but belive me most Americans can wait for it. It is only March!

[gkc99]

Like most talking heads, Dik Meyer is good at stating the obvious with breathless excitement.

The Repugs are clearly the more bigoted group, so Romney never really had a chance. Most Repugs (other than the Endtimers) didn''t want a tent revival preacher either; bad for business. So they are left, early in the game, with the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.

The Dems are having a real election, with real candidates and real positions. It''s not a king-maker party like where the Republibots fall into line. The primary season isn''t even close to being over and Dik Meyer is whining about how "disordered" the process is. That''s because the days of the Richard Daley type king-makers is gone for ever from the Democratic party. It''s actually a political party that is dynamic and going somewhere.

And Old Man McBushit will look pretty sad with his crowd of country club Repugs gathered around him, compared to either Obama or Clinton.

[destardi]

*** Meyer is wrong.

Coke, and Pepsi...American Idol, and Big Brother...McDonald''s, and Burger King.

Huge portions of Americans divide to support one, or the other...Just as in the last election, nearly half of the country going for one Presidential candidate, while the other half goes the opposite route.

Having two strong choices for the Democratic nominee is a blessing, not a curse...HELLOOOO, ***..have you seen the voter turnout for Democrats vs. Republicans?

And I''m sorry ***, but you''re a tad on the un-American side, because the last I looked, America is a Democracy, and having 10 states left to vote, alot of Americans have yet to have their votes cast, and you''re castigating Dems because they''re going the distance?

Nearly 80% of people in exit polling from Texas and Ohio say if Hillary won Texas and Ohio she should continue...THAT is DEMOCRACY.

Having a choice is what Democracy is all about.

Shame on your republican-inspired Headline.

[destardi]

*** Meyer did a great job here of articulating what millions of us are thinking but perhaps feel is too "non-PC" to say. As a proud Republican, I need to let you Dems in on something: this divisiveness and wrangling and bickering and unfocused approach of the Democrats does NOT come as a surprise to historically informed Republicans. No. Rather, it is what we have been expecting and waiting for months to occur. It was just a matter of time before the Dem leaders and shakers started tearing themselves apart. Only the Democrats could figure out how to pull defeat from the jaws of victory in a year like this. Heck, McCain may be able to stop campaigning for a few months and go golfing now, and he''''ll still likely win. This is about as humorous as it gets, folks.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by jackie0428 at 10:34 AM : Mar 06, 2008
+ report abuse


So Jackie, you''re basically admitting that republicans are lemmings, with a collective mind?

[destardi]

Oh, and Jackie...what you call "unfocused" I refer to as INDEPENDENT THINKING.

You''re an Authoritarian alright...here, go read for yourself:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Jackie, who''s getting the highest voter turnout since...forever?

[tbweb]

Do Democrats Fear Winning?

The Bush administration spent all the money and is leaving a bloated $9 Trillion debt, submitting $400 Million Dollar Budgets Deficits and running the nation on Credit, barely making interest payments. Maybe the Democrats should be scared to win since they won''t have any money to do anything thanks to the fiscally responsible GOP.

[shayjo-2009]

While not a Hillary fan, the one thing that we can all agree on is that the Democrats have been coming out in HUGE numbers to support their nominees. A new poll out today showed that if Obama gets the nomination he tops McCain 52-40% (12points!!). If Hillary gets the nomination she tops McCain 50-44%. However, I would like to argue that Obama would bring a new tone to Washington and I believe he would be a GREAT President. I repeat my mantra - we in the democratic party are inclined towards circular firing squads. Hillary is NEGATIVE beyond what we should want in a commander in chief and reflects the divisive Republican strategies that have us in our current social and economic woe''s across this country. Time for CHANGE....I don''t think we are afraid to win, I just think that after 8-long years of oppression, sometimes freedom needs a little getting used to.

[newz4i]

Republicans quickly voted "against" a party and, as some Republicans have said, held their nose while nominating Senator McCain. Democrats are sitting at the table having hard discussions concerning the future of America.

[lilvinnyb]

So what if Mccain is 70 years old. I like my presidents like I like my airline pilots...some grey on top of the head. Makes me feel safer while flying.

As for polls showing Dems ahead against Mccain, the last one I saw had 520 registered democrats and about 320 registered republicans....HARDLY an ACCURATE POLL!

[random_radar]

I am always amazed at pundits who keep saying that the democratic process is a bad thing. Maybe they would like to have an inherited monarchy instead?

[excoachken]

random: With the destruction of the middle class, the Cowardly Cowboy has taken giant strides toward making our country a monarchy. If you find that hard to believe just wait until 2012 when Jeb runs for Prez.

[aldon61]

This is hardly surprising, it''s the "nature of the beast" for Democrats to fight to the end. I am an Independent and have voted for both parties in past elections. The things I have observed are: 1. Republicans appear to be more intelligent when planning their campaigns. 2. They come together faster and focus on a common enemy. 3. When the primarys are running, rarely do they say or do anything that will hurt the party''s nominee. In other words, they''re better team players. My observations on the Democrats: 1. Everyone wants THEIR views to count. 2. They will fight to the end to make sure THEIR views count. 3. They don''t care if they hurt one another as long as THEIR views win. The Democrats are horrible team players and will eat their young if necessary to WIN AT ANY COST! This is what''s happening this year and unless the Democrats pull their act together soon, there will be another 4 years of Republican presidency....do they want that? Here is a possible solution: Go ahead and run this thing our through Pennsylvania''s primary. Count the delegates, consider to allow a Michigan and Florida re-do. At that time, let all of the "Super Delegates" that are already allocated make their pick. There should be enough delegates at that time for one of these candidates to hit the magic number and end this painful, embarrassing process. There will be 2 months left to rest up and lick their wounds, because they will need to be in unity to win the general election in November. Good luck!

[davidlar2]

The problem is Hillary. She feels entitled to the presidency as payback for Bill cheating on her. No one can stand in the way of what is owed her, and democracy, fair play, ... be damned if it keeps her from getting what she is owed.

Hillary represents all that is wrong with politics in this country. Even more than McCain, Hillary represents the status quo, big government, corrupt dealings with Wall Street, lots of pork type of government. She will be a disaster for this country.

This is why many independents are open to Obama, but Hillary will lose big to McCain when all is said and done, regardless of what the polls say now.

[l8c6]

Americans fear more than democrats that another right wing, fear mongering neo-con in power focusing on terrorists and enemies exclusively will end in a failed United States.

[j-whitman]

singinrick,,,,, Your view of the world is seen through the lens of radical HATE & filtered through your extreme far radical right zionissm

[j-whitman]

Rick,,,, According to you,, God didn''t give Moses the 10 Commandments, Jesus did

[Keypinitreel1]

Its time for this Democratic Primary to stop.. there is no way to go but Negative and the Republicans dont need the ammo.

[j-whitman]

keypinitreel,,,, You think ?? --- Make this country safer, Don''t think

McCain isn''t telling you the truth on the War on Terror, national security, or our economy.

[gangesdak]

People who boast about democracy in this country are also afraid of democratic process of electing their representative. Otherwise why should they be afraid of the continuing contest between Hillary and Obama? Is there a recommended dose for democracy? They Hillary and Obama slug it out; it is good for their spirit and for the country. From what I see, it is the men who like to see the contest end, and Hillary lose. Is it?

[jn122736]

oh, just shut up. the democrats have two very popular, very competitive candidates, both of whom will destroy mccain. the right doesn''''t even like the guy they nominated, and this clown is complaining because the left is passionate about both of their candidates? suddenly competition is a bad thing? here comes the media and their absurd pseudo-insight and senseless shiit-stirring...
Posted by zorlacskates at 12:32 AM : Mar 06, 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well said.

And,I might add, that Mr. Meyer sounds like he is ready/suited to join Rush Limbaugh, et al, on the radio airwaves.

[creeper00]

Oh, dear. The Democratic party is actually letting the voters have a say (at least a little bit) in the selection process.

The voters see two good candidates. They''re having a hard time choosing.

What is so horrendous about this process? Have we all succumbed to the "Me, now" attitude that demands to know immediately who our nominee will be?

The lengthy primary campaign has one huge advantage for Democrats. Whoever the nominee turns out to be, he or she will have been tested by the process to a degree far greater than John McCain.

Mr. Meyer, you seem to feel that Democrats would be better off with another WASP male. I find that sad.

[oleander8]

Stuff your sports analogies. Democrats argue and bicker because they don''t march lock-step for "the good of the party". They are thinking, caring, open individuals with minds of their own. They will pull together when it''s time - don''t you worry your little head about it..

[j-whitman]

Bush is spinning now ramping up the old rhetoric, trying to scare your pants off ---- The only thing the right wing understands is fear, it''''s the glue that keeps them together.

[notblue]

Most at these posts every day state the majority of American voters are idiots as they elected Bush not once but twice. Now these same people claim the general electorate is responsible and intelligent enough to not be bigotted or biased based on the two historical firsts, namely the demograghics the Dems are presenting to this same electorate as in a minority or Female candidate for president of the U.S. ????? AS much as I hate the vile Rush LImbaugh, he has a point and so does Mr. Meyer.

Either of these candidates can raise money...they are exciting, interesting candidates not willing to throw in the towel...this may actually work for the Democrats in the long run. All the focus inspires a great deal of interest. Obviously, Democrats have not made up their minds on a candidate and it is going to take longer. Of course, it would have been nice if the Democrats would have selected a "safe" candidate, one without the gender/race problems. If we did not hold our first primary in Iowa, things might have turned out very differently. I am all for changing the system. It is not right that Iowa which doesn''t even vote Democratic in the general has so big a say by being first. A national primary might get this thing done more efficiently but this has drawbacks, too.
Aldon, it is not true that Republicans rarely say or do anything in the primaries which could reflect on the final candidate. George Bush has maligned and spread rumors in the past...ugly rumors against McCain. And this is just a sample.

[j-whitman]

notblue,,,, It''s just one man''s opinion --- Take a look at the democrat turn out at the polls & the number of people voting in support of Hillary or Obama that had voted republican in the past.

[janiet3]

Barack Obama is the breath of "fresh air" this country so desperately needs after all the war and fear mongering the Republicans have handed us - and still are as a matter of fact. This is not to even mention all the misery and debt they''ve brought to our beloved country. Perish the thought even!!

We need a whole new attitude, period. And out of the 3 leading candidates, who offers all of us that? Why, Barack Obama, of course.