There is no doubt that there are several benefits to this drawn out process our party is undergoing. The news has been dominated by the minute processes of the Democratic primary, and we're hearing more a lot more about party specifics than we could have ever anticipated. The events of yesterday are just now beginning to take form in the mainstream dialog, and while certainly much of it favors Senator Clinton there is a similar emerging consensus that her battle is perhaps larger than she admits and demands much more than reality may provide.
That simple fact seems to suggest more to some of us, though, than the discourse suggests.
Over this long primary we've learned a lot about our leading candidates. We've had an opportunity to watch the management skills of both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, from the way they've approached the press to the way they've spent their money. We've seen their perception of how public debate should be framed, what issues are appropriate to raise and what territory is considered "off limits." Depending on which candidate you favor, your view on these two personalities will differ, but some traits do seem to be apparent.
Clinton's campaign has largely been very confident and driven, relentless with its message and unwilling to concede ground or allow for any discussion of failure. Every Clinton surrogate on television is informed, energetic, and on-message, whether she's 0 for 11 or about to win Ohio. Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn and every other advisor that we are familiar with in Senator Clinton's campaign seem to be in a perpetual state of combat and victory, both complaining about the details and narratives of public debate ("Why do I always get the first question?") rather than responding and answering public questions about tax returns and delegate counts. The campaign trusted itself enough to plan all the way to February the 5th, and their money use reflected their focus on several specific states rather than EVERY state. As the political climate changed considerably from their original expectations, the campaign stumbled for a short time in search of some salvageable identity and a way back to victory. We see them now in the middle of their last chance to win the nomination, declaring momentum and insisting on waiting until the future to talk about the future.
Obama's campaign has largely been almost academic in its approach, sometimes appearing too busy with canvassing and phone banking to "fight." Early on it was considered a little too wishy-washy, often being criticized as "short on substance" and shallow in its longevity and message. Even some devout supporters of Obama complained early on of his perceived inability to forcefully respond when he'd been attacked, always holding to a stand on principals and expectations he had set out early on that seemed outdated and unprepared. When Obama ultimately began hitting his stride after South Carolina, however, his previously criticized approach and rationale began to be vindicated as he pulled off victories where Clinton had invested in almost no infrastructure. His message was adopted by an entire new demographic of voters who felt compelled based on the pattern of consistency that permeated Obama's campaign. I think it's fair to say that Clinton's campaign focused much more on public perception and early control of the media narrative while Obama's campaign poured its resources into voter contact and infrastructure and just hoped the media would adopt his message after his campaign had a local, personal effect.
Some people may disagree with these observations, and I hardly consider my opinion indisputable. But I raise these points because I find something fascinating about the overtones of this campaign. The fight over public perception, the frequency of calling failures victories and victories failures, the mottos and catchphrases, the fracturing party politics - all of it parallels the debate that liberals have been in with Bush and the right wing for the past six years over the Iraq war. And it is because of this that Hillary Clinton will lose with liberals who are paying attention.
Whichever candidate you supported at the outset of this primary, the math is indisputable - according to the way our party operates, Barack Obama will have won the most delegates from the national public vote. His pledged delegate lead is simply insurmountable based on the reamaing number of contests and available delegates. This is not a spin or opinion - the Clinton campaign has already acknowledged that their strategy rests entirely on the sway of Superdelegates at this point. Senator Clinton is unwilling and seemingly unable to even speak on this, always commenting that she wins the states that "matter" and is on the path to victory.
On the other side of the world, we are stuck in a war that we should have never started, struggling to make the best of a horrible situation and protect ourselves at the same time. We have a president who approached this war largely like Hillary Clinton approached her campaign, with confidence and an all-or-nothing approach that would have seemed brilliant if it had worked. Now this certainly doesn't make Senator Clinton cocky or brazen in the way that George W. Bush is. I think we can all agree that anyone who runs for POTUS has to be an incredibly ambitious, driven person. But an overzealous campaign, a drive propelled by bravado and presumption, is much different from pride and steadfast confidence. And in this regard, Hillary Clinton launched her campaign in a manner similar to Bush's war - a campaign that depended heavily on the assumption that everything would happen the way it was supposed to happen.
Of course, Iraq has taken much longer to devolve into the tragedy it is today than Clinton's campaign took really "lose" this election. But as it has begun to fall apart for her, she has resorted to many of the same tactics that the left has endured from the Bush administration over the years.
She has called into question Obama's motives, saying he "doesn't want to achieve Universal Health Care" as though it isn't the very goal of his health care plan, just like the right declares that liberals "don't want to win the war."
She has mischaracterized his positions and record, sending out mailers claiming he was weak on women's rights even though Planned Parenthood gave him a 100% rating as a state senator.
Clinton's insistence on saying Obama has "no experience" in spite of his legislative record is practically an echo of Bush's constant refrain of "We don't torture" even as reporters cite documented reports of waterboarded detainees.
And like Bush, Senator Clinton's message is constantly contradicting itself, at one instant honored to share a stage with Obama and the next instant shaming him. She claims that "the people have spoken" when she wins a state and then claims they have yet to speak fully when she loses.
So here we are, three months removed from a year that gave us the highest number of U.S. casualties since we entered started the war. Iraq is barely being held together by a dangerous combination of troops, bribes and fear, and every few weeks or so is shattered into pieces again by an IED or suicide bomber. And we have a President who insists on maintaining his strategy because we are winning, dammit. A president unwilling to acknowledge that his strategy is draining our treasury, threatening our security, fueling anti-Americanism and furthering the damage we have already done. A president unwilling to admit that there is no way we can "win" this - there are only a variety of ways to lose. This is the mindset that we have actively fought and campaigned against for the past eight years . This is the mindset that McCain has already adopted and supported.
I understand how Clinton supporters feel at this point. I'm sure we ALL can relate to the way it feels when your candidate loses in a contest that you feel should have gone different. But the fact is that Barack Obama has won the most delegates by winning the most votes thus far in all open and fair contests, and that by the end of this campaign that fact will remain unchanged. By insisting on staying in this race and refusing to concede, Hillary Clinton is choosing to pursue the nomination through power and connection rather than through the voice of the people. I cannot stress this point enough, a point that I think most everyone here is aware of but must be stressed again anyway; the only way Hillary Clinton can win the Democratic nomination at this point is by using her connections and power to overcome her earned pledged delegate deficit.
The liberal community should recognize this for what it is - an insistence on a strategy that will doubtlessly fail because its success depends on overturning and ignoring popular opinion. It is a strategy that only acknowledges successes or progress that helps out her argument, rather than a strategy that derives from the will of the people and represents the collective voice of a nation. If this election were anything other than an election, the Clinton strategy would be exactly counter to a progressive approach to governance because it assumes the opinion of the powerful is more important than the opinion of the people.
I respect and admire Senator Clinton, but from this moment on her campaign represents little more than a metaphor for this administration's strategy in Iraq. From her campaign's no-holds-barred approach to her inability to just stop, practically every moment since February the 5th has been a Democratic version of Bush in Iraq. I would hope that she would take this opportunity to make a public statement on how to bow out gracefully from a massive investment, something our country will need to learn if we are to save ourselves from our foreign debacle. But as long as she stays in, she parallels an administration that has openly vilified and excluded the left, even when we were (and are) correct and even as we hold a majority.
We have to recognize as a movement and a party that we aren't just working to move this nation's ideology forward but are also trying to improve the way debate is framed and decisions are made. Just because Clinton has been an advocate for liberal causes and agrees with our platform does not mean that we should support her tactics and strategy. It is time that Senator Clinton do exactly to her campaign what our country should have done years ago in Iraq - bow out and do the work to repair the damage now, instead of waiting for the inevitable to happen and leaving us with an even bigger mess to clean up.