With Hillary Clinton running out of primaries with which to close the delegate gap, the Democratic contest is all but over. Barring a sudden, massive influx of elderly, female, and blue collar voters into Kentucky or West Virginia, the math is simply too much to overcome with too little time. Her dogged persistence has been admirable, but even some hardcore Democrats must be feeling like Linda Hamilton in The Terminator by now – both shocked and annoyed that the cyborg won't just die already.
Which leaves the messianic Senator Barack Obama as the prince to be crowned in Denver this summer.
Obama's upset victory has not come without a few stumbles, such as the furor over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Pundits on the Left have railed against the negative coverage surrounding the controversy, calling it a distraction or irrelevant. But for a man who has nothing to run on besides judgment and character, in addition to impeccable rhetorical skills, anything that offers some insight into how he thinks is fair game. (If there is one crack in the Obama armor, it is his palpable annoyance when people won't just take his word for it and move on – a trait that would not suit him well in the nation's highest office, where mere whiffs of scandal linger like bad air.)
Like 'unity.' A central focus of Obama's message, and undoubtedly part of its appeal, is his boast that he can transcend traditional politics and bring people together. More power to him if he can truly live up to such lofty expectations, but 'bringing people together' is easier said than done. Words alone will not rally skeptics to his cause.
To be fair, Obama's campaign web page, while replete with inspiring slogans, does lay out the details of his policy proposals: he wants bigger government, higher taxes, a 'living wage', stronger hate crimes legislation, proposes a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and would engage Iran with no preconditions. In addition, he once supported a ban on all semi-automatic firearms and voted against the nominations of John Roberts and Sam Alito.
For those of us who either question the wisdom of such policies and positions or outright oppose them, where, exactly, does the call to unity lie? The message seems to be that we can all come together – as long as those who are right-of-center on any issues would just wake up and get with the program. But that's not how our republic works. A prosperous democracy thrives on spirited debate and compromise, not some mindless chant forunity. Indeed, unity in its purest form usually involves some sort of coercion (see: Stalin, Josef).
More damaging to Obama's message is the fact that even some Democrats aren't buying what he's selling. Coming out of Tuesday's primaries, a third of Clinton's supporters in Indiana said they would vote for John McCain if Obama were the nominee, while in North Carolina 38% said the same; 17% and 12%, respectively, would just stay home in November. If members of Obama's own party – say, the types that cling to guns and religion, or take exception with the ravings of Rev. Wright – are unlikely to support him, it does not bode well for his promise to pull together the entire country.
The nature of our system dictates that, at some point, Obama will have to either give ground on or abandon one or more of his platform planks. The question for him is: which ones will it be and whom among your core supporters are you willing to disappoint in the process? He has yet to address that inevitable challenge.
And perhaps he sees no need to do so. Obama seems to think that by sheer will and charisma alone he can bridge gaps and resolve fundamental differences; bringing together liberal and conservative, Israeli and Palestinian, dog and cat – if only we believe in hope and change! Such a claim, however, would either stem from delusional vanity or be the ultimate in political pandering, the latter of which would make Obama a very run-of-the mill, if gifted, politician.
And for his most enthusiastic supporters what a disappointing shock that realization must be.
