I'll explain why in a bit, but, we'll start this with a statement of faith: after last night's debates, I'm not too terribly concerned about the election. We're going to win.
I've been saying for a while that we're going to win this one flat-out. Even Senator Clinton will win--I believe with something like 50.5 to 52% of the vote. (Sorry Clintonites, her negatives, I think, relegate her to that kind of pull.) Any other democratic candidate will win, absent dead girl/live boy. The Republicans can't field a serious candidate who satisfies enough facets of their base to bring about victory. McCain's really their best bet, but they'll need a compromise candidate like Huckabee to attract the Christians. (Who, I contend, aren't as much in the Republican pocket as one might think. I've seen Obama talk in terms that can appeal to them. We can definitely skim quite a few of them off the Repubs.) In their sniping and snarky quips, none of the Repub candidates seems to realize the widening of the rifts between the disparate factions--economic conservatives, social conservatives, and racists/xenophobes-- in their party. So they'll wind up producing a profoundly wounded candidate that's out of touch with the American people. And even if they put forth their most personable candidate--Huckabee--he'll get ripped to shreds because, likeable as he is, he's a laughingstock once you dig beneath the surface. We're going to win, which brings me to a question: what are we going to do with the win?
The Democratic Party will need to showcase competence in their ability to address the challenges we face. Corporate power, global warming, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for a "greener" economy, the wider struggle against--though I'm loathe to use the same terminology as the Small Man in Search of a Balcony-- "radical Islamic terrorism", the state of our health care system... the list goes on.
None of these problems will be entirely resolved by the next president. The next president can, though, put the American people on the path toward achieving all of these goals. But this will require a massive mobilization of our people. That'll require a president who can move and persuade the populace to get behind him. In the face of the 2000 election crime/fiasco, Bush didn't have that opportunity, at least not until 9/11. At that point, he had the will of the American people behind him, but he squandered the moment on petty partisanship and unnecessary, incompetently implemented foreign adventurism. To ensure that America rises to the occasion, the American people need a candidate that can energize and motivate them. The Republican's cannot put forth a candidate who can do this. They--like Senator Clinton, I would contend-- are stuck in the 90s, fighting the battles of that era. Listen to them, all fear and gruff posturing. They mention Hillary as though she were some sort of bogeyman. This will motivate the Republican base, but I doubt it will sway independents. The politics of blaming the other party for all ills--despite the demonstrable reluctance/inability of the Republicans to govern competently--won't be as effective as it has been in the past. If we sidestep that sort of politics, we can claim a majority while making the Republicans look like children. To capture that majority, we'll need to motivate and inspire the people in the middle. I think Senator Obama has the ability to energize and motivate people more than any of the other candidates.
Some on the internets and in the media have, for quite some time, been calling out Obama for inexperience, and some for unspecific rhetoric. I've a term I'd like to apply to this, but this will hopefully stay a polite diary, so I'll just say it's a bit short-sighted. Hillary's sly comparison of Obama to Bush--paraphrasing: "we had another candidate seven years ago who talked about change and unity... I think the voters regret putting him in office"--is off base, I believe. Bushco didn't seek to bring the country together. Bushco sought to stir up their base and bring out greater numbers of them than the other side. They weren't seeking a landslide, they were seeking a narrow, coercible, margin so they could steal the whole damn thing. Bushco were bold enough to call 51% support a "mandate". Obama talks of building a majority, a real majority with which we can govern. Don't get me wrong, I think he knows we'll have to battle it out in the trenches; but I think he's gunning for 58 to 60+% of the vote. And the demonstrated ability to bring new voters out to the polls gives me hope that he can do it. The real differences between the Obama method and the Bushco method show forth the lie in Senator Clinton's slight.
Bush wasn't able to be a credible "uniter" because his politics are inherently divisive. They are based upon turning straight Americans against gays; religious Americans against secular Americans; rich against poor. "With us or against us" is the most succint and perfect description of the binary mindset of that kind of politics. In contrast, the progressive position is inherently inclusive.
How's all this relate to an inevitable Democratic victory? Look at the debates from last night as sort of an end point of the last couple of decades for each party. The Republicans triumphed on divisive, zero-sum politics, avarice, and spite for quite some time, achieving the pinnacle, the hat trick: control of the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislative branches. They should be harmonious, politely discussing minor tweaks here and there to regain their power and hold the White House. But they're not. Far from it. Look at the Republican debate and what do you see? Bickering. Snark. Quipping. Undercutting. Snideness and sneering. What did you see with the Democrats? Oh, yes, there was a bit of politicking, some undercutting. But nothing like the bloodletting from the Republicans.
The Democrats have a solid platform that's come to maturity just as the Republican coalition is fracturing. The Christians are demanding the piper be paid. The xenophobes are livid over the porous borders and the inability of their party to ensure "cultural purity". The fiscal conservatives are dazed, wondering what happened to their party. They're so caught up in and divided by all of these that they can't develop a solid party platform. The Democrats, by comparison, look like adults: adults that're more than ready for the job.
We're going to win, people. Oh, man, this has been a jumbled mess, but that's what I want to say for now: We're going to win. I'll be more concise next time.