My 2008 Pick

The Democratic Party must nominate Barack Obama, junior senator from Illinois, as its next presidential nominee when the delegates congregate in the Rocky Mountains a mere two summers from now. The national party, led by all the usual suspects, gained a sweet victory a few days ago, but the presidency—since at least the early part of the 20^th Century—remains the big prize. In truth, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid must do their part, and not let an ever-willing President George W. Bush and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee label them a “do-nothing Congress.”

Democrats prevailed in 2006 for two main reasons: not enough national voters believed in the war effort, commonly seen as run through the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, and not enough conservatives were willing to hold their noses and punch the R given the profligate spending, quasi-amnesty-enabling policies of their president. In fact, some have yet to forgive President Bush for his acquiescence to the McCain-Feingold legislation early in his first term. Ah, yes… John McCain.

The senior senator from Arizona, having assisted in safely reelecting his colleague Jon Kyl, is now poised to replicate then-Governor Bush’s successful march to the Republican nomination, and with it, given that this is an open election (more on that later), the White House in 2009. President Bush firmly took control of that race by mid-1999, if not earlier, and Senator McCain, absent any earth-shaking political revelations, can expect a similar result in 2008, Mitt Romney buzz notwithstanding—though, one would conjecture he wants to avoid a thrashing in New Hampshire at the expense of a hot-shot insurgent candidate.

Not that it matters terribly much. Unlike 2000, when pro-Bush forces conspired to upend “Straight Talk Express” in South Carolina, which led to several unforced errors by the candidate (comparing the governor to President Bill Clinton), the Bush team, if not 100%, is on his side. John McCain and George W. Bush have had quite an interesting political relationship, from the presidential campaign, to campaign-finance, to John Kerry’s offer to McCain in 2004, to detainee rights—yet the president has taken McCain’s measure on Iraq, and likes what he sees. In the absence of a Cheney reconsideration, a foray by his Secretary of State, or, dare we say, his younger brother, that’s enough.

Quite simply, the prospect of a John McCain for President, Part II, should terrify the Democratic Party. In 2006, a perfect storm of sorts yielded the worst Republican legislative results since 1992, and any or all of those gains (just shy of three-dozen House seats and an impressive six senate seats) are ripe for disappearing. Senator McCain, we should say, would prove formidable in an electoral bid against an incumbent Democratic president, indeed, he would have a chance to supplant Ronald Reagan, circa 1980, for the title of Best Performance by a Republican Challenger against a Democratic President. Yet, as we all know, 2008 is not a “referendum” election; it is an open election. Yikes.

I should not have to trot out the Democrats’ miserable record in open presidential elections (dating back to James Buchanan edging John C. Fremont in 1856), all one has to do is recollect Democratic presidents. Bill Clinton? Ah, he defeated President Bush Senior in 1992. Jimmy Carter? The former Georgia governor beat an albeit previously-unelected President Gerald Ford in 1976. Lyndon Johnson? The most controversial of recent Democratic presidents rode a wave of goodwill and prosperity to a dominating election victory in 1964—as incumbent president. Harry S. Truman, once ridiculed and lambasted now revered and exalted, achieved validation by the citizenry in 1948—as incumbent president. Both Johnson and Truman took the job unexpectedly, yet were trusted to keep it later. Franklin Roosevelt? One of America’s greatest leaders struck political gold against the embattled President Herbert Hoover in 1932, winning three more times afterward. Woodrow Wilson? All right, by now one gets the point, but who is not mentioned? Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Hubert Humphrey, Adlai Stevenson, Al Smith, and William Jennings Bryan (twice), all of whom, in one form or another, failed to achieve an Electoral College majority. Wait, there’s an exception…

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, in 1960, would seem to provide the blueprint for all Democrats next year as to how to run not only against a Republican in an open election, but also eight years of a Republican in the White House. Senator Kennedy, though, had the great fortune to run against Richard Nixon, not so much due to Nixon’s campaign skills and talents as the fact he also served as Vice President. Richard B. Cheney is not going to run as President in 2008, so sayeth the man himself, repeatedly. What does this portend? Yet another example of what Republicans do best, run a candidate for presidency who is not actually the president against a candidate who is not the president. Comprendez?

Democrats have triumphed in three open elections since the formation of the modern two-party system. One came against a nascent Republican Party, new at the game of counting votes and building a party machine; one came against an opposition that had won six—count ‘em, 1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880—straight presidential contests, including, yes, four open ones. Democrats have seen just one victory, Kennedy’s, since the Campaign of 1884, Cleveland v. Blaine, in these contests. Oh, Gore won the popular vote—so did Samuel Tilden, well, maybe (1876). Vice President Humphrey battled Nixon to the wire in 1968; Governor Dukakis led Vice President Bush after his Atlanta celebration. Even so, in the final analysis it did not matter. Quick mathematical calculation will show a 52-48 pro-GOP result in these open elections (fifteen since 1856), yet a 3-12 mark is all the party of Jackson and Roosevelt have to show for it.

In order to reverse this trend, which means about as much as The Ohio State University football team's track record against credible SEC competition (years, coaches, any number of variables), one speculates the Democrats need to radically shift their direction, nominating someone who would change up the game. One attractive answer seems to be Hillary Clinton. In addition to her other attributes, Senator Clinton of New York is a woman, which, by itself, is enough of an altering to the race. We’ve never seen that before, apologies to Victoria Woodhull and other aspirants. No major party has ever coronated a queen as the balloons fell from the ceiling. ‘Bout time? Well, even for her most ardent supporters, perhaps not.

As you’ll recall, her husband won by assaulting the record of another. She could easily stand to do the same in 2012, assuming our present scenario (of McCain’s rise, of Democratic futility in open presidential elections) comes to pass. As a diligent senator, and even as First Lady, post-1994, the one we might one day call Madam President, has exercised a fair amount of caution—too much for some liberal activists. Indeed, a campaign by Mrs. Clinton in 2008, however noble and earnest, might yield precisely the same results as the similarly-minded Gore or Dukakis, not enough for victory. Others have argued that her disposition is that of a legislator, not an executive, and see her as one more comfortable inside the august chamber of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. She had the means and presumably motive to oppose President Bush in the last go-around and declined, her mistake.

Another point against Hillary Clinton? Time. Over the course of several years, she won the respect if not the votes of New York Republicans with her single-minded dedication to New Yorkers interests and her (fairly) low-key profile. Her visits to places near Fort Drum to name but one example helped cement her runaway reelection bid against a virtually unknown GOP challenger. She does not have that time, aside from the outliers of Iowa, New Hampshire, and now Nevada, particularly after she would receive the nomination. The crucial test of any Republican candidate is whether they can carry the states of Florida and Ohio (as did Bush, narrowly, twice) whereas Democratic candidates must persuade voters that Pennsylvania and Michigan will remain blue. Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman and one of the best politicians in America, yet if one has doubts about her appeal in less-than-liberal bellwether areas—need we recite McCain’s past good times in Michigan—it is best to wait to challenge a Republican president, should another arrive in Washington. Her past record, even covering events from her husband’s presidency and her purportedly “left-wing” views and actions of the 1970s (as John Kerry could tell her, yes that decade does matter), would be of less relevance in a “referendum” election. So, there’s one other…

Barack Obama, at this point a near-mythic figure in American political discourse, poses the greatest threat to continued GOP dominance over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (winners of 5/7, seven of last ten), particularly in an open presidential year. Senator Obama, just from his skin color, admittedly darker than what most Americans are still comfortable with (just ask Harold Ford Jr.), also changes the game. Given that Democrats routinely command 90% of the “black” vote, and given the all-too-real “white lie” phenomenon (which doomed Ron Kirk in 2002 and helped defeat Michael Steele in 2006), why should the national party take the risk? Put simply, Barack Obama is a legitimate fifty-state candidate, the first since Ronald Reagan in 1984. Of course, Obama, let us go out on that proverbial limb, is not going to win forty-nine states even if he does run and receive the nomination. The youthful and charismatic senator, however, represents the GOP’s worst nightmare: he can place southern states into play with massive voter-registration drives, states such as Georgia (with solid Atlanta turnout) that not even the widely-popular McCain can afford to lose.

Even more so than Jack Kennedy, Obama has a virtually clean record, aside from his votes in the Illinois legislature. Also like Kennedy, Obama has shrewdly courted leading foreign policy elder statesmen from across the aisle, namely my home state senior senator, Richard Lugar of Indiana. Senator Obama, in his memoirs (two before fifty!), affords his readers a frankness one does not see in many (read: any) contemporary politicians, save perhaps for another senator, just seven years ago. Other commentators have pointed to America’s disgust and disdain of “experienced” leaders (Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, immediately come to mind) as a reason for an “inexperienced” Obama candidacy, even if Obama is not necessarily the one targeted (John Edwards, to name another).

It is true that we know very little about his views, and he has not done much on major issues except vote the party line. Yet no one truly knows what anyone will do as president, as Americans from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln have surprised their constituents in due time—once they held the power. Would he really live up to the ideals of his famed 2004 Boston address? Would he even supplant that in the form of the most moving Inaugural Address since 1993?

For some questions answers are not readily ascertained. Yet, the question of how the world, in particular the rapidly-growing (in population, and in time, power) nations of Africa, has been emphatically answered. Only Bill Clinton can claim an even similar reception. We should not believe that Obama will magically solve the troubling issues of Iran and Syria, North Korea and its proliferation, or even the Israel/Palestine dispute, but we can say no one would project a better message to the world. There is not a lot to admire about our current president, but true shame lies in the world turning its back when he calls out for them to do more on their homefront and abroad, from Egypt to China; they can, in part because of President Bush’s loss of not only political capital but moral capital as well. Enter Obama, and people have to take notice. If they fail to take notice a deft and articulate president can win the United Nations over in his favor, something, regrettably, George W. Bush has not succeeded in doing on a host of issues (intervention in the Sudan, etc).

In actuality, though, the point of this report is not to argue Barack Obama would be the best president for 2009-13, only that his candidacy would prove the most potent. Whether champagne-drenched liberals want to contemplate it or not, Senator John McCain is the formidable presidential candidate in a generation, and the electoral arithmetic exudes Harding ’20 or Hoover ’28. If Democrats can find a method to assist the more rock-ribbed, shall we say, conservatives from nominating a juggernaut candidacy, that’s all to the good. Dozens of Democrats—I place perhaps too much faith in the American people here—defeat Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Sam Brownback, and a host of others (including Rudolph Giuliani and his halo), it’s close perhaps, given the historical contours of open presidential elections. One, however, defeats John McCain, in Michigan and a dozen other key states. His name is Barack Obama.

That is, if one believes the debacles and heartbreak that characterize the Ghost of Open Elections Past will not reappear for yet another demonstration of its remarkable power.