![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
There’s a Republican Under My BedPosted on Feb 11, 2008WASHINGTON—It is insane to waste time and energy worrying that somewhere, doubtless in a high-tech subterranean lair, Republican masterminds are cackling over their diabolical plot: The use of reverse psychology to lure unsuspecting Democrats into nominating Barack Obama, an innocent lamb who will be chewed up by the attack machine in the fall. Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Or maybe Republicans are using double supersecret backward reverse psychology to exploit the Democratic Party’s congenital paranoia: Let’s say nice things about Obama so Democrats think we really want to run against him, and that will make them play into our hands by nominating Hillary Clinton, who so energizes the Republican base that we can actually win an election that we ought to lose. Cue another round of deranged mad-scientist laughter. Amazingly, those are the kinds of things you hear Democrats say out loud these days. Let me suggest that the party has enough to think about without dreaming up imaginary dilemmas. Democratic primary voters, caucus-goers and superdelegates are right to keep electability in mind as they choose between Obama and Clinton. But Democrats shouldn’t give a second thought to whether Republican strategists have some secret “agenda” in mind. No matter which candidate Democrats nominate, the Republican game plan is obvious: Go negative. The Republican Party is saddled with an unpopular president, a long-running war and a slumping economy. In state after state, participation has been vastly greater in Democratic primaries and caucuses than on the Republican side—an indicator not just of where enthusiasm can be found, but of which way independents are leaning. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, should be able to capture some of those independents. But none of the fundamentals remotely suggest that this should be a Republican year. The party’s strategy almost certainly has to involve creating doubts in voters’ minds about the Democratic nominee, and how to do so is no mystery. If Obama is the nominee, Republicans will attack on the question of experience and claim he’s not ready to be commander in chief. If it’s Clinton, the obvious ploy will be to remind voters of the tawdrier episodes of the Bill Clinton presidency and portray Hillary Clinton as a divisive figure. Subliminally, Republicans can try to undermine Obama with race or Clinton with gender. In either case, things could get ugly. It’s worth noting that a recent Time magazine poll showed Obama beating McCain in a hypothetical contest by 48 percent to 41 percent, while a Clinton-McCain race was deadlocked at 46 percent. Instead of letting Republicans get inside their heads, Democrats should come to their own conclusions about who is more electable. Neither has been able to consistently stitch together the whole patchwork of Democratic constituencies. Obama is relatively weak among Latinos—but not as weak as Clinton has been among African-Americans. White men have gone both ways, depending on the state; white women have constituted Clinton’s base. Younger Democrats are all about Obama, while older Democrats remain loyal to Clinton. Frankly, I don’t see any of these groups defecting en masse to McCain. Would whites actually vote for an African-American as president? After Obama’s victories in states such as North Dakota, Idaho, Iowa and Maine, we might want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Would black voters return to the Clinton fold? I think most would, as long as she was seen to have won the nomination fair and square, with no more of the race-fueled nastiness we saw in South Carolina. One indicator that might mean something is that Obama has done better than Clinton in red states, purple states and any-colored states with open primaries where non-Democrats are allowed to participate. This could mean he has more ability to win support from independents in the general election—unless, of course, the Republican Party’s evil geniuses have transmitted coded instructions to their loyal foot soldiers to vote in Democratic primaries, for Obama, whenever and wherever possible. Enough with the Dr. Evil routine. I think there’s a simpler reason why so many Republicans speak admiringly of Barack Obama and say he would be the tougher candidate to run against. Obama disagrees with conservatives without demonizing them. He even invites Republicans to join him in building the post-partisan America he envisions. Hillary Clinton, author of the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy,” is more confrontational, to say the least. Democrats can and should argue about which approach is better. But they should worry about their own strategy—and not obsess about Republican mind control. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: The War Against Tolerance Next item: A Conflict of Conscience Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By John Patterson, February 14 at 9:00 am # “After Obama’s victories in states such as North Dakota, Idaho, Iowa and Maine, we might want to give him the benefit of the doubt.” Nicely understated, still snarky enough to get a snicker… Obama’s campaign may have transcended the race issue altogether, in terms of actual electability impact. To the young, and young at heart, of every race and either gender, Obama is a kindred spirit. A powerful bond of trust has formed between the candidate and his supporters because if it. Whether imaginery, contrived or very real, that is a hard bond to defeat. Hopefully, Obama can and will live up to all those hopeful expectations.
By Conservative Yankee, February 14 at 2:21 pm # Re:Here in Maine, (population 1.3 million) where there is a Democratic majority, fewer than 4,000 people bothered to vote.
By MackTN, February 13 at 9:44 pm # A president who'll defend me over embryonic tissueI must admit that at first I spent a lot of time worrying about the diabolical plots of the Republicans--they are known for hatching them, after all. But when it comes down to the general election, I do know this...I won’t vote for a Republican. Republicans scare me. Despite their clamoring on ideology and conservatism, they support gross invasions of privacy like data mining and recruiting the phone companies to lift your conversations. In addition, it appears that what they really want as government is a theocracy, not a democracy. I was always taught that religion was a private matter that had nothing to do with government. Given that, I just don’t give a s..t about what religion you are. Huckabee simply terrifies me. I’m apalled to see a grown man whine about embryos on television and declare that embryonic tissue is what separates republicans from all others. Its downright medieval. What interested me most was to see a response to Blue Cross recruiting doctors to help cancel patients. Clearly the next president has to be willing to fight the corporations for whom people are merely pests that endanger their profits. These are the issues that define the mettle of the candidates--I want a fighter (for me, not for embryonic tissue).
By Bill Jones, February 13 at 1:10 pm # If it’s Obama that will pretty much guarantee a
By THIRD, February 13 at 6:51 am # I like this article by Robinson. He has explained the republican’s dirty tricks very well! While knowing just how dangerous these people are when they reach power, I am not intimidated. I still adhere to the principle laid out in our Constitution that all government employees are our SERVANTS, rather than our masters, as they aspire to be.
By HQX, February 12 at 5:21 pm # I agree with the first assertion that it is insane to worry about what the Republicans will do to the Democratic nominee, right now. Of course they’ll do something and they will do every bit as much as they can get away with. They play hard and they play dirty. And they win that way. But if you’re on a desert island, you don’t worry if you’re going to get seasick on the rescue ship. You do everything you can to get on board and worry about the next journey when it’s presented you.
By Druthers, February 12 at 3:23 pm # The Democratic Party has been behaving for years now like retarded adolescents. They no longer act, they react to the Republicans, to their fear of the Republicans, of what the Republicans will say and in doing so have turned themselves into a doormat...a yellow doormat. They stand for nothing and the same members of the Democratic Party continue to vote with the Republicans. The Democrats roll over time and time again; they have abandoned the Constitution, their own Constitutional duties, the American people and behave like vulgar ner’do wells selling themselves to the highest bidder just as they sold out the airwaves, the press and TV. We are already in Pravda land and it may get worse. No wonder Obama inspires. He is like a breath of fresh air in a smelly hospital ward. What a change from the usual Bush, Clinton, Bush and now another Clinton or Ole Man McCain headed off to a Hundred Years War.
By Conservative Yankee, February 13 at 5:50 am # Re:Let me get this straight? You spend the first part of your message telling us polls are not predictive of behavior, then you use polls (60& firm Hill-the-business-shill, and 50i;rm token)to predict how people will vote. Weak I frankly don’t give a rat’s ass how many (stupid??) people support the business-shill. I will vote R if she wins the nomination ALSO, it might be instructive to view CNN’s “delegate count” although the business shill has fewer rank-and-file delegates, she has almost twice the number of “SUPER delegates.” You might want to check out who these super-peopel are.... the same party insiders who will prohibit meaningful reform… people like “impeachment off the table” woman!
By Luther Brixton, February 12 at 12:20 pm # I really don’t see how the “Obama has no experience” moniker is going to stick to Barack. Whoever throws it will just be setting themselves up to have it thrown right back in their faces. Hillary’s vast experience is what lead her to not only rubberstamp Bush’s war of aggression on Iraq in 2002, but despite having to constantly defend that incredibly poor decision for the past 6 years, she proved in 2007 that her “years of experience” didn’t sway her away from voting for the insane Kyle/Lieberman amendment – a pretext for war with Iran! That decision, more than her stupidity in greenlighting the Iraq fiasco, is why I would NEVER vote for her. She has learned nothing! And McCain’s wonderful experience has led him to the conclusion there is no way out of Iraq – period! Accepting that the US will remain bogged down there for the next 10,000 years (which he claims the American people really won’t mind!), McCain shows that his many years of experience and military acumen is no better than George W Bush – someone completely lacking in either knowledge or experience. Imagine Bush or Cheney or any of their GOP surrogates, whose decision making has been so catastrophically wrong time and time again, now claiming that “Obama doesn’t have enough experience for the job”. Point to the person whose experience level he Obama should have and I’ll show you someone who has neither the brains nor the intellectual capacity for the job – and that includes not only Hillary Clinton and John McCain, but the entire beltway crowd and media superstars who have never acknowledged their critically important role in committing the greatest foreign policy disaster in US history.
By GW=MCHammered, February 12 at 9:26 am # The Only Die-Hard Republicanthat remains in my circle is on the run 3 steps ahead of the IRS. Seriously. All others finally see there is NO real conservatism in GOP front runners.
By sovtek, February 12 at 8:54 am # Electable?The whole “electable” strategy showed its illogical weakness in 2004 when Kerry got creamed.
By Conservative Yankee, February 12 at 8:46 am # Head’s up: They haven’t scrapped the electorial college, and the map still favors Republicans. Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, North Dakota, and Indiana are red States now and for the foreseeable future. The only States where the Democrats have the same Rock Solid claim are Massachusetts,Hawaii and Minnesota, and even these are not absolute, as Massachusetts and Minnesota went of Reagan in 1980, and Massachusetts and Hawaii went for Reagan in 1984. No Democrat has carried Idaho or Alaska since 1964, and only one Democrat has carried Arizona in 60 years, and this was due to their dislike of Bob Dole. except for a brief stray into Carter Country in 1976, Alabama and Mississippi have not voted for the Democrat since 1956. Hill-the-business-shill is HATED by 47% of the people, so I would guess (assuming the obvious victory of the Clinton machine) that this will be a close election.... Las vegas is giving the D’s a point or two, but my guess is that when it is McCain/Clinton, head to head, the points will be McCain’s.
By Tom Semioli, February 12 at 7:36 am # And?And if the Democrats win? We’ll still have a war with Iran; we’ll still be in Iraq; we’ll still have a bloated miliatary budget; we’ll still have the NAFTA treaties and loss of jobs; we’ll still have insurance and pharmaceutical companines runing health care… The first Wednesday in November it’ll be business as usual.
By sheila, February 12 at 12:23 pm # Re: CyrenaPlease join the Obama campaign as an advisor. If the super delegates” go for Clinton, as she expects, nutjob McCain will be the next president. This possibility is as mindboggling as Bush as president.
By a human being, February 12 at 6:08 am # Re:great post… I just don’t see why people can’t see Hilary for what she is...a republican. Either way, if Obama wins or is undeniably the most electable...they’ll try to make an example of him just like they did the Kennedy brothers. Hope and change for the people is unacceptable to money and power interests. Add Your Comment |
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article