I admire the serene assurance of those who have religious faith. It is wonderful to observe the calm confidence of a Christian with four aces.
-- Mark Twain
For at least eight years and for at least two election cycles, this has been an accurate desciption of the Republican Party. They were confident not because of their alleged faith, but because they held all the cards.
In a similar fashion, we have had several Democratic Candidates who were confident that their own "aces" would win them the (White) House. Sen. John Edwards was banking on his previous run for office, his populist message, and his early start on the campign trail. Gov. Bill Richardson was sure his smorgasbord of experience would make him a no-brainer. Rep. Dennis Kucinich figured that if President Bush and VP Cheney has such low approval numbers, calling for their impeachment would make him a shoo-in.
They were all right in their own way, but as we are all aware it wasn't enough. Truth be told: they all had good hands, they just didn't have the "aces."
None of the aforementioned candidates could muster up the right combination of grassroots and media support that's needed in a campaign framed by television, radio and the internet. Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama did, and they both did it with "a good hand." But one thing that politics and cards has in common is: sooner or later, you're going to have to bluff.
**********
When this primary started, Clinton was the frontrunner. She had a collection of "weapons" that explained her status. She was a former First Lady (and used that position to develop the image of being a highly capable political player). She is a US Senator (and being a Senator of New York, with 9/11 still fresh, gave her a higher profile than many other Congress people who came in when she did). She was a lawyer. She is married to one of the most popular Presidents in history, and has access to his political resources.
When you add up her pluses, it would seem that Clinton has four aces. Her camp could claim that any negatives are really just people trying to link her husband's baggage to her. While I don't think that's 100% true, the average person would be hard pressed to list flaws without mentioning Bill Clinton.
Nevertheless, she had enough to create a wave of inevitablility. A wave the media and many other Democrats started to ride until people like Edwards, Obama and Biden reminded the public that this isn't the 1990's and George H.W. Bush is not George W. Bush. Clinton went from frontrunner to target in no time; but this is a natural part of the campiagn process. For her to actually complain about being a target borders on ridiculous (unless her opponents where making false or derogatory statements, of course). The media seemed to back of, partially because it was true that everyone was focusing their attacks on her and partially because the media didn't know how to treat a candidate who happens to be female.
But the worst thing that can happen to a frontrunner is doubt, and when your initial campaign is based off of a message of inevitability, a little doubt is all it takes. Obama's win exemplified this doubt, and with that was the birth of his climb to frontrunner status.
**********
In his case, Obama never came across as someone who thought he was going to win no matter what happened. Like Edwards, he embraced a model of empowerment. Unlike Edwards, the media favored Obama. That, added with his claim of being an early dissentor to invading Iraq and his relative "freshness" (read: he hasn't been corrupted yet) made him an ideal Ying to Clinton's Yang.
But his status wasn't going to be solidified until several things happened. First, the Experienced Insiders (Sen. Biden, Sen. Dodd) had to go. Than the Favorite Underdog has to be ostricized (as Kucinich was with the "UFO question"). Next was the Good Democrats Who Couldn't Muster 10% (Richardson and Rep. Gravel). That left Edwards, but the media blackout as well as the inability to win early primaries regulated Edwards to the role of referee between Clinton and Obama.
Clinton, once complaining about being attacked as frontrunner began complaining that the new frontrunner (Obama) was getting all the breaks and none of the hastle. There may be some truth in that, specifically because the media didn't know how to treat a frontrunner who happens to be black.
But the worst thing that can happen to a frontrunner is doubt, and when you are a candiate who is new to the national scene, a little doubt is all it takes. Clinton's recent victories exemplified this doubt, and brings us to where we are now.
**********
Both candiates are in a position to claim the right to be the Democratic nominee: Obama has won more states, Clinton has won the big ones. But how they are justifying their claim reveals that one of them is clearly bluffing; that s/he feels the end is near but just can't quite let go. Hey; when you don't have a strong hand, what else can you do?
For example, Obama's camp has said that polls show that a contest between him and Sen. McCain will leave the Heir to Bush in the dust (as opposed to Clinton, which is at best a slim victory at worst a glaring loss). That may be true, but so far, Clinton has been Obama's toughest political opponent, and she's a Democrat. Obama's last Republican opponent? Alan Keyes; hardly a heavyweight. So other than polls, what does Obama have to show that he can beat a strong Republican?
Then there's Clinton's claim that her experience, all 35 years of it, makes her the better choice. To which I say, "Why 35 years instead of 31?"
I'll let Melissa Harris-Lacewell elaborate:
When Obama made the choice to run for President, he did something that Hillary Clinton lacked the courage to do in 2004. He decided to seek the presidency even though it was not yet "his turn." Four years ago Hillary Clinton stayed safely ensconced in the Senate even though Americans were suffering from worsening educational outcomes, accelerating environmental degradation and the deepening failure of our war efforts under W's administration.
Rather than challenge an incumbent President, Hillary bided her time and waited for an open seat race. When she announced her candidacy it was because she felt nearly assured of an easy path to victory.
Obama could have followed Clinton's lead and simply waited until he had a less formidable opponent. His fierce urgency was not driven solely by a desire to change policy, but also by the need to change our politics. He saw a demobilized and demoralized electorate that no longer believes their voices matter.
I'm going to disagree with the "courage" slam, but the questions remain: why are things so dire now, and not four years ago? Why compare your presidential run to your husband, who took on (and defeated) an incumbent? Why 35 years of experience as opposed to 31?
Only one of these candidates has the winning hand...hopefully we'll find out who it is before Denver.