Just a few months ago, Sen. Barack Obama seemed invincible, propelled by the catchy campaign slogan, "Yes, We Can." Now, as he struggles to fend off his relentless opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton, the chants are starting to sound more like, "No, She Can't." Could the Democrats have devised a more self-defeating scenario? Even if Obama does manage to hold onto the nomination, can he beat Sen. John McCain this fall? Would having Clinton as his running mate make any sense, or any difference?
These are just a few of the questions that are most certainly haunting the party's lame leadership and its two rock star candidates as the endless primary campaign winds to a close, with no clear answers in sight.
Obama remains--technically--the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination. He has the most pledged delegates, and leads in the popular vote. But his campaign has lost all momentum. It feels as if he's playing defensively to run out the clock, rather than driving to the finish line with any flourish.
Clinton, on the other hand, just won't give up, and why should she? She's won just about all the big states--in fact, if the party had followed the general election formula of winner-takes-all, she'd already be the nominee.
She also appears to be favored among those key groups that will be up for grabs in November. She has demonstrated the toughness and persistence to survive the gauntlet that awaits her if she's elected. And as she won't stop reminding you, she has more public policy experience, as well as hands-on familiarity with the inner workings of the Oval Office.
Still, she's widely disliked. Why is that? My personal theory is that Hillary reminds people of Herminie of "Harry Potter" fame--she always diligently does her homework (usually ahead of time, while helping everyone else do their assignments, and handing in extra credit work as well), but gets on everyone's nerves, while Obama is more like Harry Potter himself--the wizard who exudes a quiet charisma and who promises to bring disparate elements together rather than driving them apart.
Whoever wins the nomination at this point, I fear it might be a pyrrhic victory.
For Clinton to win, she will have to convince the superdelegates to discard Obama's lead in pledged delegates and popular votes, which would likely enrage Barack's supporters and prompt many of them to cynically stay home on Election Day.
Or worse, she could somehow twist arms on the party's rules committee to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan, who have no standing at the convention because they broke the rules and voted too early.
Clinton is arguing that the party cannot "disenfranchise" two major states, insisting that the nominee must represent all 50 states, not just 48. But Obama argues that he didn't campaign in Florida and wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. It just wouldn't be fair to include those states without a new vote, which neither Florida nor Michigan wants to do.
Thus, if the rules committee seats the two rogue states, and they put Clinton over the top, Obama supporters will say she's stolen the election. Good luck courting those voters.
However, if Obama is nominated without counting Florida and Michigan, he might win the battle but lose the war, as voters in both states, annoyed at being left out (even if it was the fault of their own state parties), might just vote for McCain.
Of course, this battle could go all the way to the convention, leaving the exhausted, bitter Democrats just weeks to rally against McCain.
There is talk of "compromise" in the air, with Clinton supposedly offered the vice presidential spot. But I cannot imagine how that would work. Can you? After all the bad things Clinton has said about Obama being weak and inexperienced and tainted by his association with Rev. Wright?
And how could Obama take Clinton on the ticket after promising a new kind of politics? Doesn't that smell like the old-fashioned backroom deals he has decried from the start?
And would he risk Clinton being seen as another Dick Cheney--the more experienced, headstrong surrogate trying to run the White House from the Veep's office?
What a mess!!!
Still, with the economy a wreck and getting worse, with no end in sight in Iraq, and coming off one of the most unpopular presidencies in history, could the Democrats still pull this election out?
You tell me.
Comments (5)
As a person involved in insurance, both Obama and Clinton scare me because neither have any idea that insurance is a risk spreading device, not a "right."
Risk is spread by the magic of an actuary that can evaluate the risks faced by great numbers and determine how much each must pay to spread that risk.
If it is a "right," with good intentions bringing "insurance" to everyone whether they can pay for it or not, it is not insurance but a government boondoggle.
When a person wants to be President and promises to give "everyone" "insurance" and doesn't know what insurance is, deserves to be shoved into the ash heap of history.
SAM RESPONDS:
Actually, I think what the Democrats want is to make sure everyone has access to health care. Insurance is the payment mechanism.
The two candidates could have called for a single-payer system and eliminated the private insurance industry altogether, but they did not. You have to give them credit for that much.
If it wasn't for government "boondoggles," as you call it, elderly people would be tossed into the street. Who would "insure" anyone over 60 (or even younger) at any price for health care?
And what about people with pre-existing conditions--like John McCain! You think he could get health insurance without his Congressional plan???
Also, isn't the point of insurance to spread risk? The wider it's spread, the more people can get affordable coverage. Without a group rate, most people could not afford coverage.
I think the Democrats are trying to eliminate the uninsured problem without eliminating the insurance industry.
BARRY HAS THE LAST WORD:
I agree, Sam, it is a risk-spreading device.
It is not a "right" nor is it something that you can force people to buy as Mrs. Clinton wants. I pay for my own insurance and it costs a great deal because so many people receive treatment free on government order, so I and you are being taxed to pay for those who refuse to buy insurance.
Mr. McCain's pre-existing injury is covered by his employer at the time of the injury, the U.S. Navy. If he did not have that coverage or that paid for by you and me as his employer in the Senate, he would have bought coverage or paid for the service.
My mother is 96 years old and pays for insurance to supplement Medicare. Because her coverage is basically free she would go to a doctor daily if we let her.
When she lived in a retirement community in Palm Springs the "entertainment" for the old folks was a trip to the doctor. They would go, on average, three times a week because it was "free." If they had to pay for it they would not go.
People make many decisions and live with the consequences. I live in Southern California, which is earthquake country. I read the policies available and decided that the risk of losing my house was less than the cost for the small amount of indemnity the policy would pay, so I elected to not insure.
People who want to protect me from myself would either force me to buy earthquake insurance--for my own good--or give me a free gift from FEMA because I'm not insured. I don't want the gift nor will I buy a bad policy that does not provide the indemnity I need.
I will take the premiums I would have paid and save it in a form that will allow me to rebuild if we ever have the "Big One."
Young people don't buy insurance on their health because they are young and do not think they are at risk. They would rather spend the money on a Porche. Who are we to tell them they must buy health insurance instead of the Porche? If he crashes it, he took the risk and should pay for his medical care. If he bought insurance instead of the Porche he probably didn't need the health insurance.
Insurance is a contract between a person willing to take on the risk faced by the other party, as long as the price is right.
I don't want a single payer and I don't want someone telling me I have to buy something I don't want.
I am now old enough to have Medicare, but I still must pay for insurance for my younger wife until she reaches Medicare age. This does not bother me at all because it is a bargain, although it costs more than it should.
I was forced to buy the insurance over the last 30 years for the health insurance the government now gives me. The price, because it is a Ponzi scheme, was low and if I get sick I will have won the gamble taken by the government.
I would have preferred to invest the money in municipal bonds and used that money to buy my own insurance.
Give me a break, Sam. Remember, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama need to learn about the law of Unintended Consequences before they move forward with another government benefit that they maliciously and ignorantly call insurance.
Posted by Barry Zalma | May 9, 2008 11:27 AM
Posted on May 9, 2008 11:27
With the clock finally running out on the most inept, embarrasing, and manipulative presidency in modern times, it is inconceivable that the Democrats could manage to lose this election.
Once the primary contest is settled (which will be in June), the loser and the winner (and their supporters) will largely join hands and unite against Bush III (a/k/a John McCain).
Any supporter thinking of staying home or voting for McCain because their hero(ine) didn't win, should keep repeating quietly to themselves: "Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court!"
As to a ticket with both Clinton and Obama on it, it's highly unlikely, but that shouldn't matter.
She has baggage and he is largely untested, but either one (together with a bigger plurality in Congress) should be able to change this country for the better.
Posted by Phil Lieberman | May 9, 2008 12:54 PM
Posted on May 9, 2008 12:54
Phil, I wonder what you would consider "better." If I read you and your BDS correctly, anything that is not G.W. Bush or anyone that agrees with him or his administration is "better."
Really? Tell us the great things the Dem-controlled Congress has done to make things "better"? Please, anything (?).
At this point, even though McCain was not my choice, he is better than either of the untested and inexperienced opponents. Vastly better.
And I think moderate Dems will agree come November, given the left wing, George Soros-funded and controlled candidates they have as alternatives.
SAM RESPONDS:
It's tough for the Democrats in Congress to get anything substantial done with Bush's veto option and the Senate's bizzare super-majority rules to get a bill past a fillibuster.
However, what the Democrats did is provide some genuine oversight and demand some legitimate accountability for an administration that has run wild over our Constitutional rights.
Their hearings have exposed at best, gross incompetence, and at worst, arrogant dismissal of any semblance of due process of law.
Posted by William Safreed | May 9, 2008 1:42 PM
Posted on May 9, 2008 13:42
Sam, we know you are a Democrat and you are anti-Bush. Maybe you should be posting these kinds of things on the Daily Kos instead of on an insurance site.
I think that you are a typical New York-centered journalist, one who thinks that the New Yor Times is the bible. Your idea that the Constitution is being trampled is laughable and so far out of whack that it taints the rest of your arguments.
Go ahead. Root for Obama and against Republicans. Just do it in a forum that is more appropriate.
SAM RESPONDS:
I bet if I was praising King George that no one would complain.
My biggest problem with most Republicans is not that I disagree with them politically--that's everyone's right. What bothers me is how uptight they get every time someone criticizes one of their leaders.
Also, while I am indeed a Democrat, I try to keep an open mind. I have voted Republican for Mayor of New York City in the last four elections.
As for rights, it would be nice to have a president who respects the rule of law, who assures fair trials, who gets warrants before wiretapping American citizens, who abides by international laws on torture, etc.
The person occupying the White House will have a profound effect on the insurance business. I will continue to speak out about the race from time to time, and welcome anyone, like yourself, to call me to account on the substance of my opinion.
At least no one can accuse me of preaching to the choir!
Posted by James | May 9, 2008 3:19 PM
Posted on May 9, 2008 15:19
For the most part, I agree with Barry Zalma, with the exception that I believe if someone doesn't wish to be covered by insurance, either medical, earthquake, fire or whatever, they should have some standard contractual agreement that states they will not be compensated, reimbursed or otherwise covered at the expense of the taxpayer, or those who pay into the system.
I, too, live here in Southern California, and, like Barry, have opted out of earthquake coverage for the same reasons. I don't expect anyone to rebuild my home in the event the "big one" hits, nor do I expect to have to rebuild anyone elses.
But I'll bet that somehow I will end up footing the bill for part of someone else's loss for debris removal and ancillary services at least when they simply walk away from the rubble!
Same with healthcare. We're paying the bill for everyone who doesn't have health insurance, save the unfortunate ones who are actually working and honest enough to try and pony up the fees themselves, out of their salary and savings.
For example, recently a motorcyclist crashed and was in the hospital for months in ICU with no insurance. Nobody to pay the bill, no job, no money trail to go after. Guess where the money comes from? You and I, when we use medical services, if not from governmental subsidies. Same happens with all the illegals receiving free care.
None of the candidates on either side are going to solve the problems of healthcare. All that will happen is more taxes on those who already pay to give more to those who don't. Like I always say, there ain't no free lunch, especially when politicians are inviting you!
Posted by BJ | May 12, 2008 2:12 PM
Posted on May 12, 2008 14:12