(AP)
Given their strikingly similar, almost indistinguishable platforms, it would make sense that any Democrat would vote for the party’s nominee, regardless of which senator took the honor. However, as the battle wages on for the nomination, supporters of each of the respective candidates are increasingly becoming disenchanted with the opposing senator; some are even vowing to vote against the party’s nominee in a move that, as the saying goes, cuts off the nose to spite the face.
A sharp contrast from a time when Democrats said they would vote for either of the candidates, a recent Washington Post poll finds that one-third of Democrats say they may not even support the party’s nominee in the fall, if it is not their candidate. In fact, a similar poll by Time magazine shows that while 68 percent of Obama’s supporters say they would support Hillary Clinton if she won the nomination and faced Senator McCain, only 56 percent of her supporters say they would support Obama if he is chosen; one in four would vote Republican.
While the Republicans are steadily mobilizing their base behind Sen. John McCain, the Democrats are suffering an internal struggle with each passing day that their two candidate spar over the nomination. Their continued fights pulls their party base into competing directions, which party officials worry will hurt the eventual nominee that faces Sen. McCain, who will have had months of unfettered campaigning and fundraising, strengthening his support.
(continued)
Top officials and Obama supporters in the Democratic party repeatedly point to Obama’s lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates as a means of encouraging Sen. Clinton to bow out of the race so the party can through its support behind one candidate, to compete with McCain. But, Clinton’s camp maintains that she still has a chance, and (rightfully) argues that neither candidate has enough delegates to win the nomination just yet, even with Obama’s lead. While many are calling Obama the eventual nominee, Clinton maintains that they’re being presumptive.
The fact is, the current factions in the party hurt both candidates, regardless of who is in the lead. In order to win the nomination, and prove formidable against McCain, they both need the votes the other has. Both Senators have the privilege of one-half of the dependable Democratic base: Obama is wedded to the African-American vote, and Hillary is kept afloat by the votes of working-class whites. Any change of gaining a majority rests with the hope that the other’s base defects into the competing camp. Try though they might, pairing the two groups into one camp has eluded each candidate, and even the idea of a cooperative “dream ticket” of sorts gets dashed when decided who should stand atop.
So, they must fight it out. Hillary has staked her claim on the undecided superdelegates, whom she hopes to convince that she would make a better commander-In-chief, based on experience and know-how in Washington; and Obama continues to tear at her “politics as usual” with his talks of hope, change and a new Washington. But, while he continues to liken her to the politics of the past, he can’t shake the fact that his aspirations to the White House are wedded to idealism and “the audacity of hope,” with no real proven record of leadership. In fact, 43 percent of Democrats in a recent Washington Post-ABC poll said that his lack of seasoning and experience would diminish his ability to serve as president, while two-thirds of those same Democrats said that Hillary’s political style would prove beneficial in the country’s top office. Sen. Clinton, apparently, scores points by pointing to the fact that Obama has never waged a serious general-election battle against the Republicans, a test she has withstood, time and again.
Interestingly enough, one of the Republican party’s top officials, strategist Karl Rove, actually touts Hillary’s experience as a positive that she should play up more in her campaign. In April’s issue of GQ, Roves offers that Hillary’s best counter-argument to Obama’s call for effective bi-partisan leadership is “Hillary saying, ‘I've actually worked with Republicans and Democrats to get things done.’" He alludes, off the record, that he may actually have some measure of respect for her, because “she’s actually tried to work with Republicans over the years. [Obama’s] been coolly detached and sitting on the side ... she can say, ‘Look, I've been in the middle of these big battles. I've been providing the leadership. Sometimes we won, sometimes we lost. But at least I've been involved.’" Many scoff at the idea of Rove offering any advice to the Democratic candidates, but considering that he’ll likely lend a hand to McCain’s campaign, it’s an interesting glimpse of the arguments that will be used against the Democratic nominee.
Be it her political style, or her proven leadership, Hillary is still in the game, and while her chances may be difficult, she still has a chance, and that’s enough for her to see this fight to the end. If there’s anything that Clinton can argue, it’s that in the most difficult of times, she has excelled. With her constituency firmly in her grip, a lead amongst the superdelegates, and 10 more contests to go, Hillary Clinton still has a realistic chance at the nomination. Any calls for her to succeed to Sen. Obama are presumptions that he will win, and, frankly, she can be just as presumptive that she will win.