Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Expressio Unius

Law Students

: Expressio Unius

The Democrat's Bizarre Strategies To Win

By Skeet Shooting

If yesterday's political word of the day was "Credibility," rather Ron Paul's lack thereof, today's must be Magnanimity.

Who has it and does it work?

Short Answer: Obama, not Hillary Clinton, and I don't know.

Obama's recent Reagan comments were mild and clearly an attempt to link his candidacy's potential and excitement to what many consider the greatest statesman in recent memory.

He didn't endorse any of Reagan policies, but HRC leapt on even the subtlest approval that Obama may have been giving the 40th President.

Why? Because HRC needs to sow it up with hard-charging partisans and liberals in order to both win the nomination and prevent the now slim risk of a far-left Candidate costing the Democrats in November (again).

HRC must tack left to appease the MyDD types and other liberal interests groups, because at bottom she is a moderate. She is comfortably in the middle third on her voting index of the conservative-liberal divide. She achieved only a 62, 63% Liberal on economic and foreign policy compared to Barack's 85, 87% respectively. ** (see below)

Obama's voting record is a full 25% more liberal than HRC, even though he represents a much more purple state in Illinois. (And once the IL GOP is back on its feet, he could be seriously challenged---his predecessor was a pretty conservative Senator Peter Fitzgerald). Obama's deep liberalism isn't even fairly reflected in his voting record, as he has a penchant for missing votes, especially on difficult issues like Iran.

Fundamentally, HRC and Obama are fighting over different parts of the electorate--with plenty of winks and nods. HRC needs to prove her liberal bona fides, the wife of a moderate, finger-in-the-wind Democrat who possesses a less than liberal voting record. She can't give Obama an inch by talking right while acting left. In turn, she must talk left while voting and presumably leading from the center: "Reagan was a bad, bad man--although I'd do much the same."

Obama (here it comes) must appear magnanimous and "transcendent" of ideology because his positions are (probably) unpalatable to the Great American Middle. Death Penalty, Prisons, Immigration, Gay Marriage--Obama must be a visionary or else people will discover that the dots on his policy positions and his rhetoric don't match. Reagan achieved just this, and despite HRC's red meat attack on Ronnie, he is still a beloved figure to many American moderates regardless of his policies.

In sum, Barack has to "reach out" now to the Reagan Democrats to prove to Obama-loving-but skeptical-he-can-win-liberals that magnanimity can overcome consensus . On the other hand, HRC must fracture Obama's perceived coalition (Reagan Democrats and idealist liberals) by appealing to liberal biases ("Reagan was bad") and cynicism ("a real liberal will get clobbered and it'll be 8 more years of war, poverty, and torture").

Based on Obama's flustered reaction to HRC's gritty politics, I predict HRC hits him from the right ("Obama has his head in the clouds and is out of touch") next and scores the John Edwards endorsement after Super Tuesday or may even after South Carolina.

**Note Bene: They both are near-doctrinaire social liberals, but neither has to take much of a stand on these highly salient issues. The two most salient social issues of the day--gay marriage and abortion--have already been placed in the hands of the courts. And it's reasonable to assume even a socially moderate Democrat would appoint liberal jurists to the court.

Full post as published by Expressio Unius on January 23, 2008 (boomark / email).