I can't think of a time when the passing of the standard bearer's torch from one generation to the next has been so fraught with drama. The media, like a pack of hyenas after a wounded wildebeest, has latched onto the story, circling ever tighter, closing in on the idea that perhaps the Clintons won't deliver her constituency, worrying it and gnawing at its twitching carcass until the bones are picked clean. Political operative after pundit after elected official is lined up and asked, "What will Hillary/Bill say?" They are asked this serially, one after the other, for hours on end. A typical MSNBC night of coverage is three hours of guessing, exactly two speeches, and three hours of analysis. The most fun speech so far -- Dennis Kucinich's six-minute, crazed-but-yet-somehow-the-most-rational-argument-against-the-current-administration-made-to-date rant that borrowed equally in delivery style from Mick Jagger and Adolf Hitler -- was ignored. Montana governor Brian Schweitzer gave a barn burner in the midst of a hoedown that has been depressingly free of pyrotechnics. MSNBC chose to talk over it while training the camera on Bill Clinton as he gazed out over the hall, mouth agape, in as unflattering an image as any Clinton-hater could dream of. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, rated about ninety seconds of air time as he took aim at the Republicans before they hustled us back to hear what the Gene Robinsons and the Dick Durbins thought the Clintons might do.
There are a number of reasons for this. The Clintons are not really a full generation ahead of Obama. It seems like only yesterday when Bill was considered the future of the party and was drawing his own comparisons to JFK. They have not, nor, I suppose, should they have, accepted the role of elder states persons. Hillary is every bit the force Obama is -- the coin just came up tails this time. Bad luck for her. And, for whatever the reasons, many still wonder whether there is a there in Obamaland. He hasn't exactly set the world on fire since the end of the primaries. Driven home by the Republicans' quite brilliant Brittney Spears/Paris Hilton ads, the question of whether Obama has the heft to lead is hovering over the Democratic electorate like Hurricane Gustave bearing down on New Orleans.
So the Dems have spent their time worrying in between the Clinton speeches which have, predictably, both hit their marks. At which point the Dems congratulate themselves on their embarrassment of riches while struggling with their deep-seated fear that they may have backed the wrong horse. It's this anxiety that leads Obama supporters to nitpick the Clintons' speeches -- especially Hillary's -- and complain that their support was insufficiently enthusiastic.
Which is silly. The Clintons just had the rug yanked out from under them by Obama, the South Side Wunderkind. Their future was set. They had given their notices, forwarded their mail to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and begun drawing org charts. This nomination was theirs. And then came Iowa and Mark Penn's plan and Super Tuesday. And now it isn't.
To expect them to go above and beyond the level of dutiful, pro forma support for the hotshot that snatched Hillary's dream from her very grasp is, at best, unrealistic. That being said, one could argue that they did just that. Hillary's speech was gracious and partisan, if not particulary Obama-centric. Bill's was brilliant -- a reminder of what a superb politician he could be and an endorsement that he believed Obama shared the same abilities. They did enough.
It's not their job to drag Hillary's supporters, kicking and screaming, into the booth to vote for the new guy. It's Obama's. It's like the former CEO of a company calling the current boss and recommending a friend for a position. The recommendation will get him in the door but he has to sell himself once in the room. If the new boss isn't comfortable with the guy applying for the job, he's not going to hire him, regardless of the recommendation.
Plus, if I were Obama, I would find it a little demeaning to admit such a deep dependency on the Clinton's good will. Not only demeaning, but worrisome. If Team Obama is expecting the Clintons to carry their water, after what has transpired over the past year, well . . . let's just say I wouldn't expect those buckets to arrive filled to the brim, if I were them.
Barack Obama has been hailed by many, myself included, as a political talent who comes along once in a generation, if that. Thanks primarily to his charisma and message of hope and change, there are more Democrats registered to vote in the upcoming election than ever before. There are eighteen million Democrats out there who voted for Hillary Clinton. Somewhere between twenty and fifty percent of them have expressed reservations about shifting their allegiance to Obama. Guys like Chuck Todd peg the precise demographic as white, rural, female Democrats, age thirty-five to forty-nine, with an income of under $50K.
If the consummate Democrat of this generation can't convince that demographic to vote for him, what does that say?
Maybe he's not all that consummate, after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment