Democrats: Don’t Do an ’04!

If the Democrats lose the Presidential election in ’08, they should dissolve their party and spend the next eight years collectively flagellating themselves in shame. Their task, after all, is to take the White House after eight years of a President whose own party won’t even talk about him, and whose approval indices are historically low.

They couldn’t possibly mess this up, could they?

Republican polls confirm what everyone knows: Of all Republican candidates, McCain has the greatest chance of beating a Democrat to the presidency. In Florida, the Republicans took a step toward their best bet at garnering a chunk of the political center that they’ll need to win.

But McCain, being Republican, absolutely cannot win on the political record of his party, but only on his own personal stature, which is considerable. Indeed, the electorate collectively wants to punish the Republicans for the last eight years. The Democrats just have to let them. Therefore, the only way the Democrats can possibly lose is by fielding a presidential candidate who is weak where McCain is strongest. And McCain’s greatest strength is his character, so whatever they do, the Democrats must not field a candidate who is seen by many (rightly or wrongly) to be less independent of thought, less principled or cut more of the establishment cloth from which American voters of both parties are demanding change. They mustn’t, in other words, choose Hillary.

Clinton is in some ways even more of an establishment candidate than McCain. McCain has stood against Bush not only in previous elections but on matters of policy. And when he did, the stakes of his so doing were high, because he is of Bush’s party. Clinton, on the other hand, was elected to the Senate to oppose Bush, so she wins no points for having done so. Worse still, Clinton is from an “established” political dynasty, while McCain has a reputation for being able to go against the grain. But worst of all, while McCain stuck to his principles on the Iraq war, following his support of the war with support for the surge, which it seems is proving the only real success so far, Clinton voted for a war that she claims was a mistake, but then against the surge which was about the only successful part of it. These votes of hers absolutely do speak to her credibility. They seem like bad judgment, weak will, or the playing of politics – none of which are criticisms of McCain – and all of which, after Bush, the American center wants none of.

Obama, on the other hand matches McCain’s personal qualities. Precisely because Obama has a bold new message; precisely because Obama represents a departure from the political establishment; maybe also even because of the color of his skin – for all these reasons, he’s the superficially riskier choice for the Democrats and therefore the bold choice, the self-confident choice – the choice that makes the statement that the Democrats are not playing but out to redefine politics on their own terms. In that way, Obama will can give back to America the boldness and self-assertion that positive America wants to experience again. In other words, the same Zeitgeist that makes McCain the strongest Republican candidate makes Obama the strongest Democrat.

Presidential elections are won in the middle-ground of the political spectrum. McCain will be the Republican’s weapon to capture that middle. It’s the same middle-ground that includes plenty of people who are already skeptical of Clinton. Why would the Democrats even take the risk?

(Robin Koerner is the publisher of Watching America.com)