Politirazzi

By Dan

There’s a lot of hand-wringing amongst the Politirazzi about whether or not this long primary is helping or hurting the two Democratic candidates. Can’t it do both? The more time and money spent now, in every state and territory, does help introduce the Democratic candidates to the public. The world may already know who Hillary Clinton is, but do they know about her 35 years of “experience”? What about her exploits under sniper fire? And who can forget the other clients in Mark Penn and Bill Clinton’s life? Well, if the voters didn’t know before, they certainly do now!

For Obama, it’s a case of pay now, or pay later. The more he introduces himself to the country now in a series of primaries and caucuses, the less he’ll have to do it in the fall. Yes, there are still some unanswered questions about Obama. And yes, the extended campaign means more silly gaffes and responses to those gaffes in the 24-hour news cycle, but on the whole, I think the extended primary is helping him become a better candidate for the general election, while the rest of us get to watch HRC implodes under the weight of her imperial hubris, formerly known as her inevitable candidacy.

David seems to think the absence of actual voting is hurting all of us. I tend to agree, as even I was starting to get sick of all the faux news stories floating around in lieu of actual campaign news to report. But like the off season of any professional sports league, this may be a down time, but it’s not a time without interesting moves to comment on. Is Penn really out? Does Obama have a chance in Pennsylvania? And who’s really bitter in America? After six weeks without a vote to talk about, I was starting to think it was just me!

By David

The worst thing that could have happened to the Democrats was Hillary’s strong showing in the Texas and Ohio primary on March 4 and not necessarily because an extended, competitive primary is a bad—though there is some disagreement about that.

No, the real problem was that the loooonnnggg layoff between those election days and the one a week from Tuesday in Pennsylvania. Up until then , this campaign has been providing enough real news—as in actual voting— for the horserace obsessed news media to chew on. This six week interlude though has brought nothing but faux stories after faux story which churn out every day to show either a) how ruthless the other campaign is or b) how aggrieved they are.

To wit, consider that all of the following— Jeremiah Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, the Bosnian corkscrew, the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegation, calls for Clinton drop out, the backlash to calls for Clinton to drop out, Obama’s bowling, Chelsea’s rise as a campaign surrogate, the Lewinsky question, what the true role of superdelegates is, Mark Penn’s resignation—have been issues only for the past five weeks.

What we have now is sort of alternative-universe campaign, with the Obama and Clinton folks coming up guns blazing but without any legitimate why of knowing if the pare and thrust is actually working.

The latest dust-up—Obama’s supposed condescension towards Middle America—is just the latest in a series.

The result of all of this—besides trying the patience of even the most hard-core political junkie—remains to be seen, but if history is any guide, it will be forgotten as soon as the next gaffe floats across the airwaves.

(Yahoo News)

I am all for getting everything you can out of the political process, i.e. make the system work for you. That being said, for every decision and action there is a consequence. The primary season started early and it’s ending late. Long exposure is good for recognition.

However, Americans have been over-exposed to a lot of issues that are not relevant to our decision making process to elect a president. We been exposed to so many tidbits, misspeaks, ideas, suggestions and ironies of the candidates that we are now judging personalities and attitudes. We haven’t gotten concrete outlines or plans for Hillary’s or Obama’s future administration for fear of being picked apart by one another. The media is dissecting every public comment of the Democratic candidates. This extended season is harmful to whoever receives the democratic nomination because there will be a boatload of embarrassing fodder for McCain to pick from during the general election to impede his opponents run. He will have his choice of rehashing almost any hot topic from the last 18 months and confront his opponent with their own words. At this point, Hillary or Obama would be hard put to rebut McCain verbatim because there’s been so little media coverage of McCain and his blunders.
— LaShawnda

By Matt

The longer than ever primary season will hurt the Democrats for two related reasons. First, the prolonged campaign for the nomination has led to extended, counterproductive sniping between the candidates. Second, because the entire party has not been able to unite a behind a single candidate, Democrats (as compared to Republicans) may need a longer time unifying the party behind the eventual nominee.

Even at this late stage, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are still vigorously campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. As other candidates have fallen out of the race, each has been able to focus their attention on the other. As this marathon primary season has run on, the message of each of the candidates has shifted from a positive message of what they bring to the table to what the other cannot. Whichever candidate eventually wins the nomination will be battle tested. However, the real question is whether this battle is worth sacrificing the larger war for the election. I tend to think that party in-fighting tends to hurt the party and can alienate supporters of the (eventual) losing candidate. There are, of course, those who say that such primary fights enliven the electorate and spur voter turnout. I think that that position might be a bit too optimistic in this campaign for the Democratic primary, where the reputation sniping has shifted attention from the real substantive issues that Democrats care about.

This prolonged campaign season has given John McCain a distinct advantage: his relatively speedy capture of the nomination has allowed him to work on securing his base, particularly those loyal Republic voters who question his conservative bonafides.

(continued)

By David

Fascinating piece out of Salon today by Princeton history professor and avowed Clintonista Sean Wilentz on how HRC has been hung up by the Dems’ Byzantine electoral process:

Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

This, of course, has been Hillary’s take for months.

(continued)