Successful candidates share one common characteristic: a broad, enthusiastic base. Turning one's back on her/his only natural base is a recipe for failure.
Barack Obama is destined to become the next president. For one thing he is the best candidate, although not without some baggage of his own. You may legitimately ask how a black man with an Islamic middle name that is eerily similar to an infamous terrorist is the most likely candidate to become our next president. Is it that his policies are most in sync with the American public? Is it that he has the most consistent and disciplined message? Is it that he is the best public speaker? While I would argue that all of these reasons have merit, the real key to Barack’s inevitable victory in November is much more fundamental. He has a base, and while exerting a constant effort to expand that base, he has never betrayed that base.
Hillary Clinton, while an intelligent and formidable candidate, came into national prominence as first lady. As a pro-choice working female, she possessed a natural appeal to those whose primary concern was women’s issues, whether reproductive or equality issues were primary. Soon after Bill Clinton was elected, she made a genuine, although imperfect attempt to develop a badly needed national health plan. Her actions as first lady may have alienated the right, but endeared her to the progressive (A.K.A democratic) wing of the Democratic party. While her being the most hated human to the right limited her appeal, her formidable political skills (and George Bush’s failures) would have enabled her to attain a solid majority and she would have been elected our next president.
Some time soon after her convincing election to the US Senate, she took a calculated right turn. She became involved, along with a number of others, in the Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC) and decided that triangulation was the way to broaden her base. Unfortunately she failed to understand that one can’t broaden one’s base by betraying that base. The prime example was her stance on the Iraq War; she calculated in 2002 that the war would be short, or that the majority would remain supportive until the 2008 election. She was wrong. What’s more, she again miscalculated that by not admitting her mistake, like John Edwards and others, that she would be perceived as strong and decisive. Unlike George Bush’s supporters on the right, progressives respect and forgive those that admit mistakes and appropriately change their views; progressives do not misinterpret stubbornness as strength.
John McCain (McSame), in spite of some major transgressions in the 1980’s (Keating 5), garnered considerable respect as an independent, or a maverick in the 1990’s. Personally, although I never would have voted for him, I believed he was different than many of the blind right. He was no doubt conservative, but appropriately crossed the aisle on issues like the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, campaign finance reform, and the religious right (wrong). After being outmaneuvered by George (the reformer with results) Bush in 2000, McSame saw the apparent error in his ways, and turned not right, but stupid. He betrayed his independent base by sucking up in a major way to Bush, supporting the poorly contrived tax cuts and deficit spending, torture, and encouraged support from the likes of Ted Hagee, the crazies at Bob Jones University, etc. Unfortunately for McSame, the righties have good memories, and really don’t like him.
In the end, the only way to build a winning coalition is to remain true to one’s base, and attempt to expand it from there. A motivated base is a candidates ground game, and winning a national campaign is next to impossible without the base not only voting for, but more importantly tirelessly working for a candidate. That base is Barack Obama’s ace in the hole in November, and I predict he will win handily.
Joe
http://butlerdemblog.blogspot.com