Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsSunday, March 9, 2008 8:51 PM CDT
Comments Comments (13) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Past suggests Obama-Clinton fight will hurt Democrats
By David Lightman
McClatchy Newspapers
Advertisement

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Let Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama rip each other apart. It’s really no problem for the Democratic Party, veteran California Democratic strategist Bob Mulholland said. “This is not a debate about ideology or war,” he said. “This is about which one we Democrats love the most.” | Interactive: Primary map, calendar

That’s the line most Democratic activists are using these days as they watch the two presidential hopefuls engage in an increasingly bitter battle for the nomination, a war that, at least theoretically, threatens to open wounds that could be tough to heal.

“This could be a serious problem,” said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at Gettysburg College.

The past offers some worrisome lessons. In 1980, President Carter and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy fought up to and during the convention, and Carter never had the enthusiastic support of his party that fall. He lost.

Twelve years later, conservative commentator Pat Buchanan’s supporters remained wary of President George H.W. Bush, and analysts think that a lot of them stayed home rather than vote for the man who’d broken his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. He lost, too.

Concerns are starting to grow that this year’s Clinton-Obama contest could fracture the Democratic Party. African-American turnout has exploded, and Obama usually rolls up 8 or 9 to 1 ratios among black voters. He also does well among upper-income voters of all races.

But if he loses the nomination — particularly if the decision turns on some insider maneuver such as last-minute superdelegate switches or a convention credentials committee ruling on disputed Florida and Michigan delegates — will they back Clinton in the fall?

And would Clinton backers, notably the older women who’ve routinely given her 2 to 1 majorities in primaries, come out for Obama?

Most experts give a qualified yes to both those questions.

“Everyone knows that winning the presidency is the ultimate goal,” said Leo Lalonde, a veteran Michigan Democratic activist.

Warshaw said the key would be the loser’s attitude. If that person quickly and eagerly embraces the winner, supporters should be quick to follow.

Being lukewarm or waiting, though, could be costly. In 1968, Democrats split bitterly and sometimes violently over the Vietnam War, and backers of antiwar candidates Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy had a hard time forgiving Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the nominee, who lost in November.

‘Odds will still be with a Democratic win’

But there’s a big difference between 2008 and1968, argued David Barker, an associate professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Both candidates largely agree on how to tackle major issues, notably the Iraq war. As a result, “the odds will still be with a Democratic win,” Barker said.

The problem for the eventual nominee could come down to the most basic of motivations: whether voters like the candidate enough to vote for him or her.

Ohio exit polls made it clear that many Obama supporters would be less than happy if Clinton wins, and vice versa.

“Is there going to be enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton in the black community? No,” said David Bositis, a senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which researches black voting trends. “Some African-Americans may very well sit on their hands this fall.”

Even an impassioned effort by Bill Clinton, who won huge majorities among black voters when he ran for president, probably wouldn’t work, Bositis said.

“He’s somewhat tainted right now,” Bositis explained, because of his comments in January, when he noted that Jesse Jackson had won South Carolina twice in the 1980s, suggesting that Obama’s victory there was attributable to race.

Obama faces a similar dilemma among white women.

“We’ve waited a long time to be able to vote for a woman to be president,” said Ellen Malcolm, the president of EMILY’s List, which advocates putting Democratic women in office, and a Clinton backer.

Some analysts think that women who see Clinton as one of their own could be crushed if she’s defeated. “A lot of women could take her defeat personally,” Barker said.

“Democrats will vote, no matter who wins” the nomination, Malcolm said. “They’re going to agree more with Obama on issues, but they (women) may take a look at McCain.”

McCain has a history of drawing independent, better educated voters.

The consensus at the moment is that the Democratic Party is likely to heal fairly quickly. A lot of Democrats think that President Bush didn’t really win the 2000 election and that a better campaign by nominee John Kerry in 2004 would have denied Bush a second term. This time they’re hungry for victory above all.

“There just doesn’t seem to be that fine a line between Clinton and Obama,” said Si Sheppard, a professor of political science at Boston University.

Mulholland, an activist who’s been to every Democratic convention since 1980, has witnessed a lot of intraparty strife, but he noted that it usually fades when things calm down and there’s a common enemy.

He expects the same this time.

“Everyone will remember this fall,” he said, “that this is our chance to win the White House.”

Take a look
Concerns are starting to grow that this year’s Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama contest could fracture the Democratic Party. African-American turnout has exploded, and Obama usually rolls up 8 or 9 to 1 ratios among black voters. He also does well among upper-income voters of all races. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, file)
Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 13 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Santo Fan wrote on Mar 10, 2008 8:17 PM:

" The Clinton campaign is now suggesting that she has the right to steal Obama pledged delegates. A nobel peace prize winner who helped broker the deal for peace in Northern Ireland has called Hillary out on her false comments about how she played a key role in this process. Her campaign is 110% negative and she is hiding behind the actions of her dirty campaign team. There is absolutely no chance of Hillary winning the DEM nomination. She has no hope for this country, no plans, no experience and is as dirty as they come. I would say that her Senate seat is now in jeopardy based on how negative and dirty her campaign has been. Just say no to the Clinton's. "

Lizzie wrote on Mar 10, 2008 1:51 PM:

" I want Hillary to win, no contest, but I'll take another democrat over a republican especially since Clinton and OBama have similar views on so many issues. Clinton's health plan is much better though. "

Sam Wainwright wrote on Mar 10, 2008 12:29 PM:

" To: Doctor Know- I'm afraid you're exactly right about that. The Democrats' unspoken secret is that the white, uneducated, blue-collar rustbelt racists are part of their constituency. And Hillary has been playing them like a fiddle....'as far as I know' "

The Peanut Gallery wrote on Mar 10, 2008 9:07 AM:

" It is interesting to hear the Dems wring their hands over the 'fairness' of excluding both Michigan and Florida from the nomination process. When Dems cry out about 'fairness', you can be sure that they have an agenda in mind. Note that it is impossible to come to a 'fair' compromise on that issue since the votes from those two states would likely determine that outcome. Whoever flinches on the issues will be the loser and will attack the winner as being 'unfair'. I wonder if they'll dust off the old 'selected, not elected chestnut'. Somehow I doubt it. ROFLAO

TPG "

Meh wrote on Mar 10, 2008 8:20 AM:

" doctor know, the "party machine" is the Superdelegates and their votes have yet to put Clinton over the top. "

The Messenger wrote on Mar 10, 2008 7:51 AM:

" The best part about all of this, is now they WILL re-vote in Florida. The only reason they do this is because they know Hillary will win. When it was apparent Hillary did not need Florida, the Democrat party was all for not seating Florida's delegation. It doesn't stop there. Now they have proposed it be a "mail-in" election...... How do I de-fraud thee, let me count the ways....

If Republicans proposed this in a general election, it would somehow be spun to disenfranchise one group or another, so lets take a look. It will be on a time schedule, so already, there is one group completely disenfranchised, one that does things at their own pace (not that there is anything wrong with that). It disenfranchises the HOMELESS as they have no mailing address. (attn. John Edwards) Basically, it turns the election over to those with a position of advocation for the supposed "damaged" party.... The Clintons. As these are the people who will actively seek participation the most. "

The Messenger wrote on Mar 10, 2008 7:33 AM:

" On "Morning Joe" this morning, Tim Russert (NO Republican, or even fair minded moderate for that matter) referred to a "prominent black Democrat" who used the phrase "back of the bus" in reference to Hillary's presumtion that Obama would accept the Vice Presidency nod. Look it up! I should get royalties for it.

This is the Clintons, folks! It is who they are. They WILL take this nomination no matter what. They have no qualms about stepping on people to get what they want. They own the Democrat Party. They own the mainstream media. They slapped the media, and they got back in line. They will slap the white elite limousine liberals of the Democrat party and they will get back in line as well. It is DONE! "

doctor know wrote on Mar 9, 2008 9:25 PM:

" This is how it will all play out …..Obama will end up with a 150 - 200 delegate lead going into the Democratic convention and the party machine will override the popular vote and place Hillary as the Democratic candidate for president. This has already been decided in the back rooms of DC and there is really nothing we can do. An individual’s vote cannot stand up to the lobbyist’s $. Alas, the Democratic party, the “Party of the People” has nothing in common with Democracy or the People. Sigh ........ it was a nice dream while it lasted.
"

dwarf wrote on Mar 9, 2008 7:03 PM:

" You know, it'll only be harmful to the Democratic Party if Sen. Clinton continues her scorched earth politics. I mean, seriously - she's favorably comparing herself and Sen. McCain, saying the two of them have experience, while saying Obama has none. She's giving the GOP a lot of quotes about why McCain's a better choice than Obama - and you can expect the GOP to run those when Obama's the candidate.

A respectful, fair primary keeps the Democrats in the spotlight and favorably reflects on both of them. Crazy infighting helps nobody except the Republican party. "

Meh wrote on Mar 9, 2008 6:12 PM:

" The Messenger, what are you talking about? Obama is still in the lead. The "establishment" candidate is losing, despite a small lead in Superdelegate votes. If Florida and Michigan are brought in, there will be a revote and whoever wins those states, wins those states. They're not just going to "give" those states to Clinton.

And I wouldn't gloat about the Democrats being exposed for what they really are. The Republicans have been exposed these past 7.5 years and it cost you guys Congress in 2006 and most likely the Presidency in 2008. Don't expect to reclaim it for awhile. "

ktlin wrote on Mar 9, 2008 4:42 PM:

" And beside Obama is trying to stay above the fray and Clinton is throwing the kitchen sink. Make sure blame is put where blame is due. I think Clinton may be trying to fracture the party not someone who is trying to stay above the fray. "

ktlin wrote on Mar 9, 2008 4:40 PM:

" As an older white woman I will take her win personally too. It's funny the mention of exit polls in Ohio. I wonder what the Ohio women think of the Canadian situation when she let Obama take the blame when she probably knew it was her campaign all along that made the call regarding flipping on Nafta. Besides all they had to do was listen to Texas commercials. She was for Nafta in Texas and against it in Ohio. According to some on the internet they take that personally too. "

The Messenger wrote on Mar 9, 2008 3:22 PM:

" This race has made a few things abundantly clear about the Democrat Party. First it is controlled by a cabal of elite white male limousine liberals. They design "rules" to assure their electorate agrees with them. For example, the delegate designation process. Elected delegates are apportioned, giving some constituencies more delegates relative to the aggregate count. This was put in place under the usual assumption that those districts, as they historically did, vote with the establishment candidate. Did not work this year. They "punished" Florida and Michigan, not seating their delegates for violating the primary calender. This was OK with the Clintons, as they assumed they would wrap up the nod without needing those 2 states. Now, you see the wrangling, and legalese, the dirty politics that will shape the remainder of the race. As a Republican it is satisfying, gratifying. And as an American it is important that the Democrat Party is exposed for what it is. "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy