One of the most frequent arguments made by the Clinton camp against the candidacy of Barack Obama is the notion that Obama isn't adequately vetted. While I've made my case before about what I believe the Clintons really mean by that notion, let us assume for the sake of argument that the Clintons are being honest about their conviction that Barack Obama is a glass-jawed candidate with tepid, momentary support, and potential skeletons in his closet--and that Hillary is simply trying desperately to save the Democratic Party from itself by preventing Obama's nomination. (Isn't trying to save people from themselves the very definition of "condescending elitist", by the way?)
The biggest problem with that theory is not that Obama currently leads in the polls, or that he has the most pledged delegates, or that he has the support of the Millennial youth that we so desperately need to lock in as repeat Democratic voters, or that he has the support of wide swaths of Indepdendents who will be crucial to winning the general election.
No, the biggest problem with the Clinton theory is that never before in recent presidential history (at least since the disappearance of the Whig Party) has a presidential candidate managed to continued to succeed in the face of such seemingly insurmountable odds and highly charismatic opposition.
Too many observers and pundits who are close to the process are too absorbed in analyzing individual trees to take stock of the truly wonderful, breathtaking forest that they have the opportunity to behold. Here, in Barack Obama, is a candidate who has stood up to and so far defeated all of the following:
- A year's worth of continuing attacks and opposition by Bill Clinton, one of America's most popular presidents and ex-presidents, and a veritable hero to wide swaths of the Democratic Party for whom he is the only truly successful, charismatic national Democratic politician in memory or recent memory
- Over a year's worth of continuing attacks and opposition by Hillary Clinton, also a hero to vast numbers of Democrats, including to some of the most important demographics in the Democratic party. To many Americans, she is a symbol of the idea of healthcare reform in the United States (however flawed that perception may be), and a sympathetic figure because of her refusal to distance herself from her husband after the Lewinsky matter.
- The strident and forceful opposition of some of the biggest names in the business of Democratic punditry, strategy and pollsterdom. Names that come to mind include James Carville, Paul Begala, Mark Penn (I know, not really a true Democrat, but a huge name), Paul Krugman, and the top polling outfit Garin, Hart, Yang. And these are only a few.
- The opposition of the 2004 vice-presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket, John Edwards. John Edwards ran against Obama deep into the primary race, and still refuses to endorse either candidate, in spite of having very clear differences in policy, strategy and views on money in government than do the Clintons. This has cost Obama much of the populist support he might otherwise have received from Edwards' not having been in the race, or from an early Edwards endorsement.
- The opposition of the pretty much the entire DLC wing of the Democratic Party and all its ideological adherents--many of whom still unfortunately control much of the Democratic power establishment.
- The opposition of most of the institutional Democratic State and local party infrastructures throughout most of this primary campaign.
- An all-out vicious assault by the VRWC, including and especially Fox News, which runs a continuous, unabated stream of anti-Obama propaganda--and often outright pro-Clinton propaganda.
- The nearly single-minded attacks of one the most popular, media-beloved and well-liked Republican senators and politicians in the country, John McCain. Rarely does McCain make a speech without making a wisecrack about Obama's "audacity" or mocking his campaign slogans. McCain knows that Hillary would make an easier general election opponent, and therefore targets almost all his fire on Obama.
That is an amazing number of opponents to have working full-tilt against you for the space of an entire year and a half. If you had told me that a Democratic Candidate for President would withstand and defeat the tag team opposition of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (for a time), Paul Krugman, James Carville, Mark Penn, GarinHartYang, the DLC, most of the Dem State and local party infrastructures, Fox News and the VRWC, and "war hero" John McCain, I would have told you that you were flat out insane.
If you then went on to add the following facts about this candidate:
- He is African-American
- His last name rhymes with Osama, his first name is "Barack", and his middle name happens to be shared with an evil dictator and be common among this nation's most discriminated against and feared ethnic groups
- He is a one-term junior Senator
- He starts the campaign with almost zero name recognition compared to his competitors Clinton and Edwards
And then you told me that a candidate with these characteristics would withstand that much fire and still win in the United States of America, I would have probably advised you consult your local psychiatric office to have yourself outfitted for a straitjacket.
I once said of the Lieberman/Lamont race that Lamont's beating Lieberman in Democratic primary in spite of every institutional force being arrayed against him was like an ant going up against a tennis shoe--and winning:
In the other, you had the three-time Senator, former vice-presidential candidate, visible party statesman, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, the other popular CT senator Dodd, most of Organized Labor, the women's groups and the environmental groups, most of traditional Democratic party support, paid lobbyist support, paid armies of GOTV staff, the slick ad money, the top DLC consultants, and a 3 to 1 budget gap.
I'm sorry. That's not David vs. Goliath. This isn't even the NBA champions versus a rec league team.That's more like an ant vs. my shoe.
And the shoe lost.
Obama's feat, while perhaps less dramatic in some ways, is more dramatic in others. It certainly comes close.
If I'm a superdelegate, what I see in Obama is nothing less than an incredible phenomenon--a politician for whom the usual rules seem not to apply. A candidate who seems to weather every storm and defeat every challenger almost effortlessly, no matter the odds. A tour de force the likes of which this country has rarely seen before, and is unlikely to see very often again.
If starting with such incredible disadvantages and defeating such seemingly insurmountable opposition isn't adequate vetting, someone out there needs to tell me what is. To my mind, Barack Obama seems to be the most vetted candidate in recent history.