Do Democrats Fear Winning?
Electoral workers count votes in the European Fiscal Treaty Referendum at the City West Hotel, Dublin, Ireland, Friday, June 1, 2012. Saying yes could mean dooming Ireland to more long, hard years of austerity. But saying no could mean national bankruptcy next year. Ireland's debt-burdened voters confronted an existential dilemma Thursday as they decided in a referendum whether to ratify the European Union's deficit-fighting treaty, a measure backed by Germany as a confidence-building measure but criticized by many economists as exactly the wrong kind of medicine for countries drowning in red ink. Results come Friday. (AP Photo/Peter Morrison) / Peter Morrison
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.
By Dick Meyer
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. 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.
By Dick Meyer
Really??? The American people (democrats) had a choice of many more candidates and who are the last two standing? With record levels of voter participation at that.
The people wants these two - loud and clear - and I think we have a very clear idea of what will happen with either or both on the ticket: THEY''LL WIN!
Now, if they could just get their act together and come up with a joint ticket before we head into a gruesome battle of negative campaigning, super delegate voting and having to figure out the FL,MI mess.
Posted by AJMarine1 at 10:18 PM : Mar 06, 2008
Until the Iraqis themselves had the ballz to put him down. All Bush has created is the grand daddy of a welfare state in Iraq.
Posted by ike-3 at 03:40 AM : Mar 07, 2008
Mr. Obama spent eleven months trying to tear Hillary down, without making a plan, articulating a plan, or a straight answer to a question. And now he''s come out and just flat lied over sending his wink wink message to Candada about NAFTA! He''s said he will withdraw the troops, and then has turned around and said he may not withdraw the troops. He''s had to sacrifice every friend he had because they were all crooks! He''s said he was for nuclear energy, then turned around and said he wasn''t. He doesn''t even have a stance that Hillary didn''t write down for him and put it up on a teleprompter for him to read, because otherwise he couldn''t articulate it.
This is the American Idol candidate promoted to you by the Neocons as being the new Messiah! For God''s sakes, wake up America! If we put an incompetent president in the White House who can''t bring about all this HOPE and CHANGE, that means they''ll get a fresh run at it in four years!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by AJMarine1 at 10:18 PM : Mar 06, 2008
+ report abuse
I''d say he could have waited until AFTER those who attacked us were done away with don''t you? I''d also, suggest that IF we decided to go after him the PEOPLE, you do remember that part of the Constitution about WE the PEOPLE don''t you? Anyway I''d say the PEOPLE deserved to be told the TRUHT about it. We were LIED to a total of 935 times in a two year period by that piece of human trash you still call a President. That is NOT what we as a nation should stand for no matter the objective. Sieg Heil Bush!!
"So Dems, just keep fighting amongst yourselves, and don%u2019t worry. We the GOP can take care of things for you."
-Jackie
The question is Jackie, can the country afford to let the GOP keep running things?