Democratic Nomination - At What Price?

One has to admire the grit and determination shown by Hilary Clinton in her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. A nagging question that must be considered regarding her value judgment is the price that she is willing to pay for that personal ambition. There is an old cliché about winning the battle and losing the war that has added relevance now. Many have questioned whether Clinton will do anything and fight for the nomination at any cost, including the division of the Democratic base that could risk losing the general election in November. In this regard, HOW you win is as important as WHETHER you win. Doubt about the Clinton campaign’s grasp of this important principle is evident. The proof is no more apparent than in her campaign’s management of the race issue.

The fact that one Democratic candidate is a woman and the other is non-white has long been recognized as an issue that the GOP might seek to exploit in the general election. As such, the primary and caucus contests have been a useful process to test the receptivity of the public to a “non-traditional” candidate, i.e. someone who is not a white male. At this point, however, the huge turnout and the astounding support that both candidates have received suggest that the United States could elect either a woman or a Black.

The current contest has gone beyond that question and taken a distinctly negative turn. The Clinton campaign seems to be playing the reverse race card in a way that potentially threatens Democratic Party cohesion necessary for the party to win the November election. Party officials and veterans have recently expressed concern about the divisive nature of the continuing contest. Conventional political wisdom suggests that it is better to seek to distinguish candidates within the same party on issues that are not fundamentally divisive and in ways that do not give substantial advantage to the other party’s candidacy. Obviously, such divisions can more easily be healed and permit the entire party to unite behind the candidate ultimately selected. Division on fundamental issues tends to cause the “losing” faction to sit out the campaign for the general election. For example, differences over ways to handle health care are issues that can differentiate without permanently dividing the party. Promoting division among the party electorate on the basis of race or gender, on the other hand, could cause permanent rifts far more difficult to heal.

Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign seems to be playing the negative side of race while we have not seen Obama’s campaign play the gender card. This is a bit surprising in light of the goodwill that Clinton began with as a result of the legacy of her husband’s Presidency. Yet Clinton’s campaign has promoted her candidacy among poor uneducated whites and on several occasions deliberately injected race into the public debate when it was unhealthy to do so. When the potentially harmful comments by Clinton supporters [e.g. Geraldine Ferraro] were made public, it seemed that Obama left Clinton alone to deal with the issue. On the other hand, when issues like the Rev. Wright commentary have surfaced, Clinton’s campaign has quickly and repeatedly jumped on the negative bandwagon. Similarly, Clinton tried to turn a candid reflection by Obama about disaffection by the poor and undereducated into a racial issue.

Obama’s comment about bitterness leading to “guns and religion” was not a inherently race based reflection, although it did note a class distinction [one that is real]. It is equally true of black poor constituents as it is of poor whites. The fact remains true of both groups that when they face difficult challenges that they can neither understand nor control, they tend to cling to familiar comforts. Finding a message that speaks effectively to them is a real problem for Clinton and for Obama. Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign seems to have opted for a negative “message” to poor whites suggesting that a Black candidate cannot understand their troubled situation.

The “message” that is either being intentionally broadcast or recklessly disseminated by Clinton’s campaign is that Obama should step aside, despite his lead in popular and delegate counts, and let allow the nomination to go to Clinton because the country is not ready to accept a Black president. It implies that there is a large segment of ignorant and bigoted voters who would ignore the leadership qualities of Obama and ignore their personal best interests simply because of distrust of the candidate’s skin color. For Clinton to suggest at this point that she is more “electable” than Obama is just “code” for the message. Clinton’s “experience” claim has been largely debunked. It has been distilled to the essence stated by a woman responding to a pollster in Indiana who stated that one reason for favoring Clinton is that “she has her husband to help her.” In short, Hilary does not have substantial advantage in terms of personal experience. Her candidacy can make an “experience” claim only if viewed as the candidacy of Hilary and Bill Clinton. In fact, both candidates have substantial political experience and neither has a distinct advantage in that regard.

The press, of course, will be inclined to play up the racial divide because it is salacious and because it may favor a GOP base with which many media owners are allied. The campaigns of the candidates should recognize that they are playing a very dangerous game. The history of the United States is complex and difficult with regard to race relations. There remains difficulty even talking openly about the manifest problem. Lyndon B. Johnson was not always a stalwart advocate of the rights of minorities. At a crucial point in history, however, he had the courage to stand against his traditional southern [and typically bigoted] power base to promote passage of the Civil Right Act. It takes courage to choose the difficult path over the easier or more convenient one. Playing to fear, ignorance and bigotry is the easy and convenient path, but it is neither courageous nor in the best interests of the country.

The question of the moment is whether Clinton remains willing to exploit the racial divide at a time when the country so desperately needs healing, change and unification. Is Clinton willing to stand up publicly and counter the ugly and negative tone that seems to be infused in her candidacy in order to display the necessary courage? Would she rather choose to stand by and allow that message to be promoted by her subordinates in order to win the nomination without regard to the potential cost to the party and to the country? One might argue that taking a very public stand would strengthen her chances of winning the nomination more than failing to do so. But win or lose, her play to racial bigotry will seriously impair the chances of the Democratic Party victory in November.