TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
30.06.2008
So Maybe That Long Primary Race Wasn't So Bad

As the primaries dragged on--and on and on and on--many pundits worried that it was damaging Barack Obama's chances to win the presidency. (And, just to be clear, by the last few primaries I was agreeing with them.)

As the theory went, Hillary Clinton was giving the Republicans arguments they would use against Obama in the general election. In addition, it was widely said, she was forcing him to fight what was, in effect, a two-front war, fending off attacks from Clinton and John McCain simultaneously. Yes, Obama was still going to become the nominee; that much was clear after the Indiana contest, if not sooner. But he'd emerge from these contests politically weak--and McCain would have emerged from this extended period so strong--that Obama's prospects for election would be significantly diminished.

Well, here we are, basically one month after the Democratic nomination campaign ended, and Obama is sitting on what looks like a pretty steady lead in the polls--anywhere from four to fifteen points, depending on which survey you want to believe. (Gallup has been the lone exception, but its latest poll also has Obama ahead by a few points.) It's been more than a month since anybody's survey showed McCain ahead. And while McCain has his moments now and then, most pundits agree that Obama looks stronger--and that it is, increasigly, his race to lose.

Meanwhile, Clinton--widely rumored to be planning all kinds of nefarious acts for Denver--appeared on stage with Obama, offered her wholehearted endorsement, and gave the campaign a terrific day of media coverage.

Of course, it is very, very early. The polls could be overstating Obama's support and, even if they're not, there are a million things that could go wrong for him between now and November.

But, looking back, would an easier race really have left him in a stronger position? As Obama himself has said, the long primary probably gave his campaign more opportunities to organize and raise money. (Just look at how his fundraising tapered off once the contest was over.) It also forced him to hone his message--and to confront issues like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, which would have bedeviled him in the general election.

And one more thing: It looks like most of Clinton's supporters will, indeed, come around and support Obama (as they should!). But imagine if party elders and the pundits had somehow brought the race to a premature close. My bet is that a lot of her backers would be far more bitter now--and Obama would find himself with a more lasting, and more serious, problem among these voters.  

History does not allow us to run counter-factuals, so there is no way to know for certain whether a quicker, less torturous primary might have been better for Obama and the Democrats. But given the state of the race today, you can count me as skeptical. 

--Jonathan Cohn 

Posted: Monday, June 30, 2008 7:01 AM with 15 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

WaltB said:

The only surprising thing the primary brought out to many was that it showed Bill to be what he is, a panderer of first degree, who doesn't care for anything but your vote (unless you're an attractive woman, but that's another issue).

June 30, 2008 8:19 AM

dbhuff said:

Yep, looks like Bill is a sore loser too. His wife has done well with her defeat, but Bill is off the reservation... www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-%27kiss-my-ass%27-for-his-support.html

June 30, 2008 8:56 AM

ackyri said:

I think you're right, Jonathan. We should all be able to look back and feel a bit sheepish at how hysterical we were as the primary dragged on, and to call that hysteria what it was - impatience.

I don't know if any Hillary supporters (or anyone else) pointed this out, but sometimes we take sports or combat metaphors too far in politics. Sure if Obama had to, say, box or wrestle Hillary and then turn right around and face McCain, an extended "fight" would be cause for worry. But it's not like Obama's going to run out of rhetoric, and as you (and the candidate himself) have observed, the long haul may well have been better for business.

June 30, 2008 9:18 AM

BHLnyc said:

I'm still inclined to believe that Obama would have benefited from a shorter, less divisive primary.

The fact is, as dbhuff points out above, we're still talking about the Clintons and obsessing about what they want, how they'll cope, what they'll do and when they'll do it. Last Friday's event in Unity only underscored how this narrative won't go away. This cannot be good for Obama to have the focus constantly on the vanquished. And I fear, as the convention approaches, that it's only going to get worse. What role Hillary and Bill will play there and how much airtime they score will become a major media talking point.

Just think what the effect would be on McCain's campaign if the press and the punditry spent this much time obsessing about Mitt Romney.

June 30, 2008 9:28 AM

johnalthousecohen said:

"What role Hillary and Bill will play there and how much airtime they score will become a major media talking point."

Why does this matter at all?

Conventions *always* have star speakers who get a lot of airtime. These always include senators and former presidents. Does anyone really doubt that Hillary and Bill are going to get major airtime at the convention? I don't see the issue here.

June 30, 2008 9:41 AM

selish70 said:

Yeah, wow, months upon months of free advertising from news outlets turned out all right.  Hooda thunk it, what with all the hand-wringing by all the eggheads at TNR.

June 30, 2008 9:48 AM

jmkerr said:

"I'm still inclined to believe that Obama would have benefited from a shorter, less divisive primary. "

The only thing a shorter, less divisive primary would have demonstrated is that Democrats are morons for moving to Obama. Instead, the voters let him stand out there holding onto only blacks and liberals. Hopefully, that will continue.

But there's no question the Obamabots were and are hysterical.

June 30, 2008 9:49 AM

ackyri said:

Hillary was hardly getting any press attention until the Unity event anyway.

June 30, 2008 9:59 AM

BHLnyc said:

johnalthousecohen:

I think you're missing the point. You're right in that there really isn't an issue there -- of course the Clintons will speak -- but the media will dissect the story ad nauseum for weeks in the run-up to the convention, looking for hidden meaning in when they speak or how many minutes they get, who'll introduce them, what the negotiations were like, how contentious they were, how many of her supporters will refuse to back Obama, interviews with bitter morons like Helen Christian and jmkerr and on and on and on.

In the end, this just is not good for Obama to have so much attention diverted to the losing candidate. It smells like Carter vs. Kennedy, 1980, where the convention narrative was all about healing the wounds. Focusing on that stuff has the unfortunate effect of crowding out Obama's message, squandering precious airtime on insider politics over policy and potentially making the party look fractious and bumbling.

June 30, 2008 10:26 AM

bigfish said:

"Instead, the voters let him stand out there holding onto only blacks and liberals. Hopefully, that will continue."

Yeah!  Stupid black and liberals.  Too bad the REAL Democrats didn't have a chance to voice their opinions.

Oh, wait.  I'm not black or a liberal.  I'm a white moderate.  I guess I'd better not tell jmkerr that I'm a 20-something and that my Obama support somehow doesn't matter either.

June 30, 2008 10:29 AM

blackton said:

The campaign season hasn't even started yet, after the conventions when they recycle all of Hillary's attack lines she made late in the game, then tell me it didn't matter. The reason they aren't doing it now is because they know if they did, everyone would get sick of it by November.

June 30, 2008 10:32 AM

The Plank said:

Jon makes a lot of good points on the subject of whether Barack Obama would be in a stronger position

June 30, 2008 11:34 AM

wagonjak said:

jmjkerr...I've rearranged the letters in your name to reveal your true identity...mr jerk!

Obama has leads in almost every category except old white men and women! And if there are any morons on this thread it's more likely to be clueless Faux News and Limpball minions like yourself who are lining up to elect Ole Leatherneck and four more years of BushCo...

And the only "hysteria" I see are the right wing whackos like yourself who are trying to stir up racial and sexist fears in the progressive threads!

June 30, 2008 11:47 AM

blackton said:

wagonjack, jmkerr hasn't been right about anything on these threads since he has come here. He predicted big wins for Clinton is Indiana and an upset for her in North Carolina. The guy is absolutely clueless about basic math, as though only blacks and liberals could get Obama the nomination, that was the Jesse Jackson coalition not Obamas, but for someone like Kerr, all blacks look alike so probably is just confused about who is who and when is when. I actually find him funny, like watching a Chimp try to figure out a rubick's cube.

June 30, 2008 12:45 PM

AaronBBrown said:

I must admit, I rather miss the excitement of the primaries, even though it was extremely emotionally draining, a real roller coaster ride. Fighting the evil of the Clintons is almost as invigorating as fighting the evils of the Bush administration, though they are only comparable from a moral perspective, not a practical one.

For all the problems with the Clintons, which are myriad, I don't believe that Hillary Clinton would've ever taken us into an unnecessary war, or tried to undermine the integrity of our courts and the Justice Department by staffing them with unqualified incompetent political hacks and shills.

But let's keep our eye on the ball here people, the problem is not with the Republican Americans specifically or the Republican Party itself and conservatism in general. The root of America's problem lies in our own apathy and laissez-faire approach to our civic responsibilities.  The buck stops with us folks, and if we allow criminals and traitors to reach the highest offices in the land, it is we who are ultimately responsible for what they do in our name.  It is we who have to do the hard work know of repairing our country and getting this nation back on track. We've learned a punishing lesson, let's just hope the message sinks in and we never allow this nightmare to happen again.

In a very real sense Barack Obama and his campaign not only offers the American people a way forward, but he also offers us an opportunity to atone for our sins and make up for the wrong we have done in the world.  And that is one of the things we Americans do best, redemption.

Up the Republic!!!

"....that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

June 30, 2008 6:18 PM