Hillary's Dinkins Dilemma
A little New York History....
In 1989, Ed Koch had been the mayor of new york for 12 years and was seeking re-election. He faced a difficult strategic dilemma. Koch was challenged in the Democratic primary by the popular African-American candidate David Dinkins, who had rallied liberal support. Koch also faced a serious general election threat in Republican prosecutor Rudy Giuliani. Koch's problem was this: if he attacked Dinkins, he could win the primary, but in doing so he would so alienate African-Americans that he would have no hope against Giuliani. If he didn't attack Dinkins, there was a very real possibility that he would be denied re-nomination. Koch (probably correctly) decided to take his chances by not attacking Dinkins, and lost the primary. Dinkins went on to become the first African-American Mayor of New York City.
So what does this have to do with Barack Obama? Everything. I have argued before that Obama would have an excellent chance to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination because of his ability to unite liberals (who are uneasy about Hillary) and because he would monopolize the black vote, a constituency Hillary has been counting on.
But Obama presents an even graver threat to Hillary's chances than I originally realized. Obama is no Jesse Jackson, who white Democratic candidates could safely ignore. He has a legitimate shot at the nomination. He also underscores all of Hillary's perceived weaknesses. But worst of all for Clinton, from a strictly tactical perspective Obama re-creates the "Dinkins Dilemma" for Hillary. She would need to attack Obama in order to defeat him, but doing so would thoroughly alienate African-American voters and (fatally) damage her chances in the general election. But if she didn't attack Obama, he would retain his "Golden Boy" image and likely defeat her the primaries.
I have said before that Obama could win the nomination. I am going to take a risk and say that if he decides to run, he probably will win it. Which I think he's probably smart enough to have figured out.
"I am going to take a risk and say that if he decides to run, he probably will win it. Which I think he's probably smart enough to have figured out."
I believe the same. The nomination is there for Obama to win, he needs to decide he wants it.
One question though. When you talk about needing to attack Obama and alienating the black vote, are you saying that the attack ads would have racial overtones and that is why they would be so off-putting to that section of the electorate. I think that substantive differences which attack the opponents positions on policy would not have an alienating effect.
Personally, I find Obama to be a much more impactful speaker than Hillary even when addressing their common policy grounds. I think that is what really hurts Hillary, how does she separate herself in a meaningful and decisive way. I do not think she can.
December 5, 2006 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
No I don't think it needs to be racially charged. I just think that African-American voters are likely to perceive attacks on him as racially motivated.
December 5, 2006 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a false perception, generally held by those who think of AA's as a monolithic group. Both are false perceptions. AA's , just as all voters differentiate substantive attacks from those with racist overtones. What is true is that the manistream white populace fails to acknowledge racial overtones and racist attitudes even when they are blatantly obvious.
Two recent examples being the 'spin' on the Richands rant focusing on rapper music and the dog food served to the fireman in LA being deemed a hazing 'prank.'
December 6, 2006 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're reading too much into my post.
First, I am not saying that there is a strict parallel. I am claiming that Obama presents a serious tactical problem for Hillary in much the same way Dinkins did for Koch.
Second, I am not saying that Obama is the inevitable nominee. I am claiming that Obama's set of political assets give him a uniquely strong position in the Democratic primary contest vis a vis the presumed frontrunner. He possesses all those qualities (charisma, liberal support, anti-war, a fresh face) that Hillary lacks. The fact that he is also black severely restricts Hillary's ability to attack him.
December 5, 2006 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a parallel, for many reasons. First, Koch was viewed as confrontational, if not to the point of Giuliani, at least to the point of further dividing rich from poor, black from white. Clinton has a decent enough reputation, and her husband is particularly popular among many black voters.
Second, New York City has a large black population and a large liberal vote. One has to take both into account in the primaries, and moreover, as with Mark Green, any animosity in primaries may come back to haunt one in the general election. In America as a whole, the black primary vote is not as large, and blacks know a lot better than to abandon the Democratic nominee for president. There's also a larger illiberal vote all too eager to run away from blacks, sad to say.
Third, Dinkins had been cultivating a career as a representative of a large black community that felt it deserved a chance to participate in governing. Obama in contrast is making history by being taken seriously as a black candidate, and blacks may well vote for him, but not with the same feeling that they've earned his nomination. Indeed, Dinkins had been around a long time and paid his dues, whereas Obama is an unusually young candidate with plenty of time to ascend.
Fourth, voters can always figure that Obama might get the VP slot. New York is all or nothing.
Last, it was harder for Koch to explain why not to vote for Dinkins without distancing himself from any number of things that matter to voters or by dismissing Dinkins personally. With lots of likely presidential aspirants, it's everyone focusing on his or her candidacy's strengths, and there's little call to dismiss or demean others. Obama himself said nice things about Clinton yesterday. She'll no doubt praise him to the sky while milking her own celebrity, cash, and supposedly strong but compassionate vision of America.
So no, this isn't in the least helpful an analogy at all. Would you say that Obama's sheer existence makes any other Democrat a loser? Would you then seriously say that only a black can become the nominee? In this country?? Of course, I think Clinton's candidacy is flawed in its own ways, and she's also to the right of me, but one thing at a time!
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 5, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is viewed as polarizing, though. By a large percentage of democratic primary voters as well as the general populace
When voting in the primary, blacks just as all voters are not abandoning the Democratic nominee, they are selecting the nominee. Thus Obama and Hillary are on equal footing in terms of black voters selecting a democratic candidate. i.e. all choices are democratic.
This is true for blacks nationally, as well, given that there is only one black Senator, now. Blacks have felt they deserved a chance to participate in governing for a very long time. There has yet to be a black Attorney General but there is a Yoo and Gonzales. ]
Totally presumptious and false. Blacks like all Americas have had to endure incompetent mainstream white candidates being deemed qualified and elected for over 100 years. Folks, like the current President, his VP, the entire neo-con group shaping foreign policy as well as Agnew, Nixon, Dole, LBJ, Frist, Thurmond,Quayle, etc. So, to assert that 'blacks' have not earned a nomination is absurd. American voters period, have not earned many of the nominations foisted on this republic. Obama brings all the necessary talents and skills needed for the WH. There can be no question about his 'earning' the nomination. The history of blacks in America alone, has earned this nomination, indepedent of Obama's outstanding intellect, courage of conviction and common beliefs and ideals for this country.
Youth is generally the essential quality for change, since it is age and wisdom that condemns, people, societies and governments to the same repeated failed ideologies, policies and paradigms. Change is lead by youth. America is at a nadir in terms of what it means to be a democracy. Obama has the right grounding in US Constitutial Law to right the wayward shifting of executive branch to a unilateral, unitarian or despot signing statements we have put up with for the past 8 years.
It is time, now, for someone with Obama's beliefs to ascend to the WH...we need new thinking and new ideas to lead this country in the new millenium. We especially need some one who believes in consensus building and negotiating with countries who we have common interests with regardless of whether they are allies. Obama's youth is an asset, so is his lack of political baggage. If he appoints Bill Clinton Secretary of State he will have all the foreign policy experience and a highly regarded leader working with foreign heads of state. America will have a sage for foreign policy and Obama can lead on domestic issues. Youth is an asset.
Yes and no, respectively. It is not his race that makes other nominees lackluster. Rather, it is his charisma, cogent analysis of policies, eloquence when addressing issues and overall ability to address what people have in common, that over shadows the other candidates. Additionally, the man is substantiative and simply well educated. Obama is not the sizzle on the steak....he is both...the steak AND the sizzle. Every other democratic nominee is a steak relative to Obama so it is these qualities not his race that captivate and inspire others. He has all the same qualities Bill Clinton exuded and when you have those you transcend the masses, regardless of race or gender.
Basically, what America is watching is Clinton in color.
Yes, America is ready. Obama is the person and he will be inaugarated in Jan 2009
December 6, 2006 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't what you really saying is that any Democratic candidate who runs against Obama will be perceived as running a negative campaign by the African American community? Why don't we just make him our candidate by acclimation now and avoid the hassles. At least, by your lights.
To date, he has enjoyed two very lackluster years in the Senate advocating not quite liberal policies and even cozying up to Joe Lieberman. Personally, I'd like to see Obama do something during the next year before we make him our candidate. Wouldn't you? Then we can decide who should become the 2008 candidate.
December 5, 2006 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Hillary has a particular problem with Obama because he eats into her base. Clinton's strategy relies on winning overwhelmingly among black voters. If she doesn't, she's cooked. There are other candidates who don't face that kind of problem (Bayh, Vilsack, Edwards, Clark, etc.)
Generally nomination contests become 2-person races. I think that if Obama runs, he and Hillary will suck the life out of everybody else's effort. But that's just my opinion.
You are certainly free to have your opinion about Obama. But my post is not about Obama's worthiness, but about his chances.
December 6, 2006 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. What the Democratic party needs is Howard Dean. I would far rather see him lose than to see Hillary win.
December 5, 2006 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dean is not running. Period.
And what is so awful about Hillary?
December 6, 2006 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sooo glad you asked.
First of all, note my blog name. I am not a centrist who calls himself a liberal. I am a civil-liberties-and-social hard left lib. Keep that prejudice in mind as you read anything I write. (Not that I'm a lefty, but I think of a "moderate" as a neocon who lost her/his nerve (:^)}.
I used to think that Hillary was the liberal in the family. Certainly Bill wasn't, with his "end of welfare as we know it" and "escalate the war on drugs" attitudes, to name just two. But Hillary, I thought, would be a true lefty. That's what one gets for not doing one's research.
Discovering that she is a protege of the Democratic Leadership Conference was a red light for me. I was also tipped off when the original Lizard Man, James Carville, said, "I would run through walls for that lady." But these are just indicators, not necessarily proof.
But as a Senator, she has shown her right-of-center colors. She is one of the people I railed against in my essay about the Dems who voted in favor the authorization of force against Iraq. I am quite sure this vote was not the result of being hoodwinked. She's a smart cookie. This was a vote she made to position herself for the run in 2008.
She backs Herr Bush's initiative to give money to religious organizations. I can't abide that.
Perhaps worst, she is also the person who introduced (not voted for, but introduced) a clearly unconstitutional bill that bans flag burning; this places her, believe it or not, to the right of Antonin Scalia on this issue. She knows her bill is unconstitutional. And whether she has contempt for the First Amendment or is simply pandering to right-wing emotional "patriotism"...well, either way it's contempt for the First Amendment. I really can't abide that.
I could go on, but in my philosophy, this is waaay plenty. What we don't need in the US is a second right-wing party, and that's what people like Hillary seem to be working toward.
This is why I pine for Howard Dean, a man who represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
December 6, 2006 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at her record, Hillary Clinton is definitely a liberal. But she is not a "knee-jerk liberal," she is a pragmatic liberal. Her great strength is that she seeks solutions for the problems that divide the country.
An excellent example is the flag-burning bill. For me flag-burning is a minor free-speech issue, but for many Americans it is a hot-button issue of national pride -- The Constitutional amendment passed the House by close to a 75% in favor, six different times since 1995! Hillary's flag-burning bill would have partly defused the issue. And it would NOT have been unconstitutional. It banned flag-burning for intimidation. It specifically allowed flag-burning as a form of free speech.
So K J Liberal, what do you propose to do about the 75% of Americans who feel strongly about more "right-wing" issues? Beat them? Win elections against them? Convince them that free speech is more important than national pride, for instance? Hillary Clinton actually tried to do something about this particular divisive issue.
I loved Bill but I didn't think so highly of Hillary. I swallowed hard to vote for her for Senator in 2000. Now I think she is great. I see the themes behind her positions. She doesn't try to BEAT her opposition so much as finesse the issues toward a practical (rather than an ideal) solution.
December 6, 2006 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You call her pragmatic; I call her a panderer. I feel she is a betrayer of liberals.
You ask what I propose. I propose that a US Senator should protect and defend the Bill of Rights, and I don't acknowlege the existence of a "minor" free-speech issue. Where it comes to political speech, I maintain that Nazis, Anarchists, Communists, Nihilists, and even Christians have a right to say what they want, as hatefully as they want. The cure for hateful speech is more good speech, not censorship. You can look it up. It's in the Constitution.
I grant that such a proposal is unlikely to garner much support these days. Most Americans approve of having their phone calls monitored and being vulnerable to imprisonment without due process. They figure it can't happen to them, personally. I have a problem with that. That's not the country that so many people have died for.
If divisiveness is what it takes to retain individual liberties, vive la fraction!
By the way, do you also support the practice of providing tax-payer money to support certain religions? She does. Did you agree with her vote giving Bush a blank check that has paid for the killing of 3000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in Iraq? Do you consider those to be pragmatic votes?
December 6, 2006 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me flag-burning is a minor free-speech issue...So K J Liberal, what do you propose to do about the 75% of Americans who feel strongly about more "right-wing" issues? Beat them? Win elections against them? Convince them that free speech is more important than national pride, for instance?
It's all how you raise the argument. The right wing says this is an issue of national pride -- what HRC and other moderates are doing is accepting that argument at face value.
Just a strong argument can be made, even in terms of national pride, on the sanctity of our Constitution. That we have a Bill of Rights that allows for political expression, and preserving the right to speak out -- in all forms -- is something that sets our country apart from many others. It's what makes our country great.
(And 75% of Congresspeople does not necessarily translate into 75% of Americans support...)
Dissent Protects Democracy.
December 8, 2006 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And she hates videogames.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
December 8, 2006 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that too!
Seriously, it's another example of pandering. As has been pointed out many times, twelve-year-olds are already prohibited from purchasing the games she and Lieberman are moaning about, and the prohibition is quite effective.
This is part of her campaign to woo the wingnuts. (Say..."Woo the Wingnuts" would make a great song title, n'est-ce pas?) They swallow this kind of BS with a spoon.
December 8, 2006 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don"t see this "videogame" thing as wooing wingnuts....it pretty much woos mothers of all demographic groups who vote.
December 8, 2006 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me re-state: It's a badly-timed, hypocritical attempt to make her look as conservative as she actually is.
December 9, 2006 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this post is a good analysis of the public face of this campaign.
I'd bet HRC, though, has some potential backroom politicking that Obama won't be able to measure up to...
I kind of see Obama as Bush 2000 (without the Prez Dad) -- he's a darling of the press, despite the fact he hasn't done anything yet. I feel like at any moment, the press could turn on him. Clinton, in comparison, already has her story set.
(I'm thumbs-down on HRC, btw.)
Dissent Protects Democracy.
December 5, 2006 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
WhiteRoseBuddy's points are all well taken, but I think he misstates what I was saying a few times. So rather than argue back, let me just clarify those.
I agree that Clinton is polarizing. I don't think she's an ideal nominee pragmatically aside from my not loving her centrist politics. I agree with Josh's post over at TPM that her strengths can be exaggerated in the media by her being the darling of two vocal groups, conservatives and beltway establishment types who'd love a familiar storyline. However, none of that is pertinent to whether Obama is immune from opposition in the primaries. As Bohemian says, he's not winning by acclamation.
I don't imply that blacks in the primary, by opposing Clinton or anyone else, are abandoning the party. I mean that they'll stick with the nominee in the general election. Unlike in New York, one doesn't have to fear losing to a Republican in November simply because one had opposed a minority candidate earlier.
I also don't mean blacks haven't earned plenty, as have women for that matter. I am talking about perceptions among black voters and others: I mean that blacks and others across America simply won't shout in unison "how dare you" every time someone says "vote for me and not Obama." For that matter, women won't uniformly screech if Obama so much as dares open his mouth.
Of course, your support for his charisma and your linkage of his youth to change are different matters entirely and unrelated to anything I or the poster were saying. We'll see how he does, and while I will vote for a more liberal candidate, I respect him and wish him well.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 6, 2006 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi John,
I try not to misconstrue what people assert and was surprised when you said I misstated, given that abandon was the word you chose ... you wrote :
You also assert blacks 'know a lot better' here:
So, pretty much I agree you did not imply this. Rather, it was asserted by you and not misconstruing on my part
While not being argumentative, you also attempt to clarify this statement::
By saying:
Help me understand how you are contrasting Dinkins work with cultivating a local black community with Obama's national efforts of cultivating blacks and whites nationally in terms of Obama's efforts not being 'perceived, among blacks that they have earned the nomination' because they will not 'shout in unison how dare you'.
Are you attempting to say that blacks lack allegiance to Obama, nationally relative to the allegiance Dinkins had locally among NYC blacks? Or that blacks do not feel they have "earned" a right to participate nationally in governance with Obama like they felt locally with Dinkins, if so why would that be? Why would blacks feel differently about 'earning' the right to participate locally in governance vs. nationally?
What is the basis of the presumption on your part that black voters nationally do not have a feeling of they themselves having 'earned' the nomination or right to govern for Obama?. Obama is preceded by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Shirley Chisholm.
Your choice of the word 'earned' is really unclear in reference to the demographic of black voters. To pose the question differently, do you think that Clinton, Gore and Edwards were perceived as them having 'earned' their nomination by black voters, or as you say..... "blacks shouted in unison 'how dare you' "when asked by opposing nominees for their votes? I am trying to get a sense for the vested interest you seem to convey black voters as a demographic have differently from all voters particularly with regard to your assertion of how Dinkins had it and Obama doesn't.
Noting his charisma and youth were in direct contrast to your remarks about Dinkins 'having paid his dues' and your conventional wisdom of Dinkins 'being around a long time' The response was directly related to your use of the candidates youth here:
Even though it is not quite clear to me what you mean by 'they having earned the nomination' among black voters; do you agree with the basic premise of third estate that Hillary needs that same block of voters in a national campaign as Obama and risks offending them by attacking Obama?
One thing I have noted of late is that Obama is positioning himself very strongly with the 18-25 year old voters by having PODcasts and there are several You Tube videos of him speaking and being interviewed. This reminds me of Bill going on MTV and Arsenio Hall. While this block of voters is notorious for poor turn out..they could have an impact given the potential for a draft that is being discussed.
I was surprised by your desire for a more liberal candidate. In what regard do you want a more liberal candidate? Do you honestly think a more liberal candidate could win?
December 8, 2006 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink