Bogus Gold

As the Obamessiah's poll numbers recover from that embarrassingly off-script crazy pastor saga (largely due to a return to the hands-off media coverage that enabled his rise in the first place), the Democratic presidential race is returning to a study writ-large regarding the mental state of the Democratic electorate. To the extent you can set aside your belief that voters are by and large rational creatures it has its own special fascination. Especially in contrast to the substance that characterized the parallel Republican race earlier.

Let's reflect on that latter point for a moment. In the Republican primary there was much fluff and pompery attempted by many candidates trying to skate past the issues with airy proclamations that they represented the next Ronald Reagan. Time after time this strategy failed, as voters held candidates accountable for their positions on immigration (which almost sank McCain's campaign last summer), war (which resurrected McCain's campaign in the winter), domestic security, federal spending, the environment, and many more. The important thing was, there were clear differences between the Republican candidates regarding their policies around these issues, and what the candidates themselves represented. Rudy Giuliani was seen as the social liberal who would be a foreign policy hawk and a law and order guy at home. Mitt Romney was the guy who adopted all the right socially conservative positions (but perhaps too conveniently close in time to his presidential run) and brought a whiz-bang understanding of private sector business wisdom. John McCain was the "maverick" who may occasionally thwart his own party but possessed of an iron sense of honor, who would never compromise with terrorists and who's resume gave instant credibility over matters of war and peace. The list goes on (Huckabee, Thompson, Hunter, etc.). These were candidates with DEEP resumes and considerable track records of accomplishments by which to measure them, forcing them to explain themselves to one another and to the electorate exhaustively.

Flash over to the Democratic race and one finds plenty of candidates with equally impressive resumes (Biden, Richardson, Dodd). The difference was how little impact they made upon the race, while inexperienced candidates with little to offer but rhetoric soared to the top of the polls. Obama, Edwards, and yes, Hillary.

It should be remembered that Hillary Clinton is only an "experienced politician" in the least conventional sense of the word. Yes, she's been close to matters of the utmost political importance for decades as First Lady of Arkansas and then of the United States. But after the one major political issue she had unquestionable accountability for (Hillarycare) went down in flames, she was carefully protected from clear positions of authority or accountability until she became a U. S. Senator years later. Her Senate record is weighty compared to Obama and Edwards, but hardly compared to most anyone else. And when it comes to matters of policy substance, it has been pointed out repeatedly there's almost no difference between Obama and Hillary (Edwards offered a slightly stronger whiff of anti-capitalism, but he's gone now and both remaining candidates have subsequently adopted his populist rhetoric too when necessary).

The real question is, what the heck is going on in the Democratic race? Why has that entire party chucked experience out the window and driven themselves mad over a choice between two major unknowns? Why has half the nation decided they could chant words like "hope" and "progress" and not have to worry about being bitten by the far more consequential presidential traits like "inexperience" and "ambition" in the end?

I think a keen look into part of the answer comes in this revealing piece in New York Magazine today attempting to rationalize the media's crush on Obama.

Contrary to the vast-left-wing-conspiracy visions of the right, much of the press never really loved the Clintons—they just feared and loathed their enemies more. The first people I ever heard viciously ragging on Bill Clinton, early in 1992, were a liberal reporter covering him and a writer then working as a Democratic staffer on the Hill. Part of it was visceral suspicion of the Clintonian political M.O. and character. And part of it, I think, was a kind of half-conscious intragenerational resentment.

Despite conservative conspiracy theories to the contrary, this jives very well with my memories of the Clinton era. The media would fall all over themselves to cover for the Clintons, but became exhausted and frustrated in the effort. They needed the Clintons because they knew how to win against Republicans. They had no one else on deck who seemed capable, as the subsequent George W. Bush presidency bitterly taught them. One has to remember, Democrats always believe their Republican opponent is unbelievably worse than their nominee. They thought Carter and Mondale were clearly superior to Ronald Reagan. Michael Dukakis was clearly superior to George H. W. Bush. And of course Al Gore, John Kerry, and any random third grader were clearly superior to George W. Bush. So to them this strange ability to win the presidency has little to do with the quality of their candidate. It all has to do with some mysterious formula of winning over the rubes who keep getting it wrong. The Clintons seemed to have this magical touch, and it grudgingly won over the liberal media.

That, in a nutshell, was at the heart of Hillary's once "inevitable" nomination. She didn't have to prove she was better than the other Democrats. It was presumed any Democratic candidate would be "better." The Clintons weren't about "better," they were about "winning."

So how the heck did Obamania emerge amid all this? Now we come to the most interesting part (subsequent emphasis mine).

...it’s ironic that the media and their fellow upscale Americans are now disposed to like Obama precisely because he resembles them in so many ways. The difference is he’s relatively unsullied, an exquisite, idealized version of themselves: educated, thoughtful, twigged to nuance, a lovely writer, well-traveled, witty, cool, dignified, candid, a little quixotic, a clued-in grown-up but not yet ruined by the ugly facts of Washington life.

And, mirabile dictu, a perfectly postmodern embodiment of compromise between the hard binaries of race and age. He’s both white and black. Born on the very cusp of the baby boom and Generation X, he’s both oldish and youngish. And as a skinny, athletic, gentle-seeming, virtually metrosexual man, he nearly splits the difference on gender as well.

What we're seeing here is the triumph of egotism over compromise. If Hillary Clinton's appeal was that she had that mysterious "winning" formula, Barack Obama's appeal is to every Democrat who believes they themselves know how to win too. It's as if a mass movement all believe that, "Sure John Kerry and Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, and on and on might not understand it. But I, (insert individual upscale Democrat's name here), am smarter than them. I know how to beat those nasty Republicans. And look - there's a candidate that is like an 'idealized version of myself.' He and I don't need Hillary in order to win the White House. It's a new era and finally people like me are calling the shots."

Why would a mass of people come to believe this all together? Because Obama's campaign rhetoric is an explicit demagogic appeal to this impulse. "We are the change we've been waiting for" is the thing in a nutshell, swelling the vanity of the individual voter into a cult of personality around Obama.

So where does Obama's appeal increasingly fall flat? Among anyone who looks at Obama and is unable to see their own idealized reflection. Don't take my word for it. Here's how the same article describes them:

Uneducated white people, residents of the so-called C and D counties, and the elderly—in other words, Hillary Clinton voters

There's a serious implication here, which I think Republican strategists ought to chew on. Hillary Clinton remains far and away the candidate more likely to win over any Republican in November. Why? Because while those "uneducated white people, etc." may not be enough in number to sway the Democratic nomination, they're far more significant in the general election.

Obama's cult of personality is built around a shared ego-trip. Hillary's campaign is (now that she's had to actually battle to win the thing) built around tough campaigning and often shameless pandering campaigning to the key demographics that swing elections. You want to know the Clinton's special "winning formula"? That's it.

With most every other key indicator favoring the Democrats in the general election, that Clinton "winning formula" is positioned perfectly for a November victory. Voters are by and large ready for a new party in the White House. Perhaps the Republican "maverick" represents enough of a break from the Bush presidency to suffice, but I wouldn't bet upon it. I don't like John McCain's chances against Hillary Clinton in November at all. But, of course, Obama stands a very good chance of keeping her name off the ticket.