SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Will Obama's Independent Appeal Hurt With Dems?

THE PLANK JANUARY 7, 2008

Will Obama's Independent Appeal Hurt With Dems?

BY ISAAC CHOTINER

Noam writes:

For what it's worth, Mike and I ran into a
Clinton insider last night who offered an additional twist on this
argument: Not only does Clinton do better among registered Democrats
than she does among independents and Republicans. But he thought
registered Democrats would be especially inclined to give her a second
look after Iowa and New Hampshire because they'd resent having their
nominee chosen by a bunch of interlopers.

He then goes on to explain why this will be a tricky argument to make (it's subtle, it concedes Obama's electability argument, etc.) and then adds:

Having said that, maybe partisan Democrats
really will resent the "meddling" of independents and Republicans in
their primaries--and maybe they'll perceive that meddling to
be the reason for Obama's success even though it's not true. (The media
narrative will probably help Hillary on that front--I suspect we're
going to hear a lot about independents immediately after New
Hampshire.) So I'd be reluctant to dismiss the strategy out of hand.

What first came to mind when I read this was George W. Bush's eventual defeat of John McCain in the 2000 primaries, where there certainly was resentment that an influx of independents gave McCain a victory in early states. Still, there seems to be at least one crucial difference between this example and Hillary's current predicament: The GOP base already had good reason to dislike McCain. A large part of McCain's popularity with independents rested on his willingness to buck the Republican establishment and take positions more in line with the overall electorate. Obama's appeal to independents relies on other things entirely--namely his call for "change" and appealing personality (McCain also had an appealing personality, to be sure). In short, the Democratic base has no reason to dislike Obama, and thus it's hard to believe they will resent his broad appeal.

--Isaac Chotiner 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 10 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

10 comments

Maybe if Clinton had not voted to give Bush his invasion license and for Kyl-Lieberman this argument would have a leg to stand on.

- stgla

January 7, 2008 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And maybe if hadn't won Iowa with previously registered democrats, albeit with a smaller margin, they would still have an ass to sit on at least...

- dbhuff

January 7, 2008 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Good Ship Unity is going to have to get around some icebergs, notably single-payor.

Do all those Repubs flocking to our latest "morning in America" candidate really want single-payor? Are they being not just charmed, or "touched" as fellow poster JackR puts it, but actually PRESUADED by this man that linking helath insurance to employment is insane, and that only a huge and expanded role for government in the insurance realm can end this insanity and achieve our other goals?

I don't want to be inspired. I want my country to provide its citizens with this most basic of all social welfare goods. And to have a leader who knows his way around a very rough world that doesn't give a f*** about tales of American uplift, least of all about one American's quest for self-discovery.

- teplukhin2you

January 7, 2008 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree. I am an undecided Democrat and my feelings are shared by others of like persuasion.  Obama is at the bottom of our list for many reasons.  The rock star stuff may gain him the nomination, but once the bloom is off the rose with the press and there is a careful study of his political history (voting record, positions), the independents will take a second look. A lot will depend on his competitor, but he will be swift-boated into oblivion.  It started in Iowa loud and clear:  Barak Hussein Obama.  We will then have to hear about his Muslim rearing or comments that include that all too obvious consonant slip to Barak Osama.  These are just the obvious concerns we have.  Whatever happens tomorrow, we are all praying that Hillary AND Edwards stay in for the long haul.  The public connects with his charisma and a vague message of hope.  Have they looked at his position on healthcare?  We need someone who will fight for the middle (soon to be lower) class and their needs.  We've had enough charisma and inexperience with the current resident of the WH.

- ritamarlowe

January 7, 2008 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd love to hear some folks addressing what Obama might actually do as president.

- theQ

January 7, 2008 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd love OBAMA to address what Obama might do an President.

- butchie b

January 7, 2008 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Might actually restore American world leadership.  Balance budgets.  Render health care accessible, if not universally available.  Might restore Constittional civil rights.  Might get to change the make-up of the Supreme Court.  Might move cynics pretending to be critics to the back of the cultural bus.

- telezeugma

January 7, 2008 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

POTUS is one of those jobs where there is no way to get experience except being in it.  As much as everyone likes to say so, being a governor does not prepare you for the president - see our current one.  Unlike an NFL coach, you don't get to go from being POTUS of one team to POTUS of another team.  The experience thing is a crock of bull because it's impossible for anyone to get before taking office.

As for knowing what he would do as president, let's see, Bush was going to fix our problem with Mexico, bring honor back to the white house, and lower our presence outside the US.  Clinton was going to provide universal health care.  We see how well all of those worked out.

What you want is an intelligent leader, something we haven't had in 7 years.  I think both Clinton and Obama can do the job.  Which one can do it better?  Hopefully we'll find out before the primary wreckage ends.

- anonevent

January 7, 2008 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Confused about what Obama would do as Presdient?

www.barackobama.com

- rozenson

January 7, 2008 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tep,

Many of the countries with universal health care have a secondary private track for those willing to pay for it.  This does not mean that they will necessarily get better health care.  My father had heart surgery at New York-Presbyterian, performed by one of the top cardiac surgeons in the country as well as subsequent rehab with almost all the cost picked up by Medicare and where much of the cost not covered were charges for a private room.  Someone paying for private medical care couldn't have had any better care.  I think that the private track would be more for patients who want medically unnecessary treatment.    For example, except for reconstructive surgery and a few other cases, cosmetic surgery should be paid for by the patient.

- whimsy007

January 7, 2008 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close