There have been press reports in recent weeks about how the Democratic Party is inexorably coming together in its battle against presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain — but according to a Wall Street Journal report, the Democrats’ likely candidate Sen. Barack Obama is still getting a no-dice thumbs down from top supporters and donors of Senator Hillary Clinton, who will be wooed by McCain.
What remains notable in this and other stories is that these top supporters and donors who supported the Obama’s former rival for the party nomination aren’t balking and seemingly poised to donate money to the GOP due to policy or issue differences with Obama. Rather, reports suggest they’re angry and their lack of support seems to be more a form of punishment aimed at Obama and the party for what they feel is a bad attitude on the part of Obama — not a good sign for Clinton if Obama loses and Clinton decides to run again.
Is anyone willing to bet that Obama supporters and many Democrats who dream of retaking the White House will forget her supporters and bankrollers refusing to donate to the general election or even fund McCain whose agenda on many key issues differs from that supported by many Clinton supporters?
Stories like this (and others) are now being indexed on Google for use in 2012 if Obama loses — stories about personal anger over a broader issue of a perceived general attitude, not over the kinds of differences that cause some conservatives to balk at McCain, or caused some Democrats to vote for Sen. George McGovern, or many Republicans to vote against the late Senator Barry Goldwater:
Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, faces dissent from dozens of top fund-raisers and other supporters of former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, who are angry over how she was treated during their bruising primary battle and are hesitating to back Sen. Obama.
Some leading Clinton supporters are starting new Web sites or political action committees aimed at prodding Sen. Obama on issues or pressuring him to give Sen. Clinton a big role in the general-election campaign. People familiar with the matter say the effort involves dozens of the roughly 300 Clinton “Hillraisers,” individuals who raised at least $100,000 apiece for her campaign.
The Clinton holdouts are typically most angry about what they say was the media’s sexist treatment of Sen. Clinton during the campaign. And though few, if any, blame Sen. Obama directly, they fault the Illinois senator and other party leaders for what they say was failing to do enough to stop it.
What’s missing here?
Any stated affirmative reason to support McCain — who does remain highly appealing to many centrist and conservative Democrats and independent voters. But those voters will usually give a reason, such as McCain’s tougher stance on the war. This is all about about payback. And the Journal reports that the McCain campaign is going to actively woo these donors. It would almost be political negligence if they didn’t. Meanwhile, there is indeed some personal anger targeted at Obama himself:
The McCain campaign is pressing its case with former Clinton donors. Roughly two dozen big Clinton backers are looking to meet soon with Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard Co. chief executive who is avidly supporting Sen. McCain. The idea, said one person familiar with the campaign’s plans, is to pluck disaffected independents, and especially women, from the ranks of former Clinton supporters. A similar meeting occurred last month in Ohio between Ms. Fiorina and Clinton supporters, the McCain campaign said.
It’s a logical strategy and not at all unethical for McCain. But it’s likely to hurt Clinton if Obama loses and it’s perceived to have made a difference.
The Journal notes that Obama has had some luck with Clinton donors, but then adds this:
Obama representatives said the residual anger among Clinton backers is a given after the bitter primary battle. And they expressed optimism about their money prospects, even as Sen. Obama touts his campaign’s refusal to take money from federal lobbyists and special interests. “I can afford to simply say, ‘No, I’m not interested,'” Sen. Obama said recently, asked if his refusal to take public money made him more vulnerable to donors who might have an agenda.
But it is precisely this attitude that turns off some former Clinton donors, who were used to being treated to private audiences with the former first lady and her husband and exclusive events during campaign stops. Many of those donors have decades-long relationships with the Clintons and would be unlikely to support any other candidate as enthusiastically.
Note that it’s about attitude’ — not policy.
Some former Hillraisers, even ones who are backing Sen. Obama, complain privately that the Illinois senator remains aloof and plays down what they believe was sexist treatment of Sen. Clinton during her campaign as the first major female presidential candidate.
Last Wednesday, Daphna Ziman, a prominent Beverly Hills backer of Sen. Clinton, hosted a conference call of some 70 political activists from around the country, spurred by what she and others on the call saw as the media’s sexism during the campaign.
One high-profile example: pundits both on TV and in print referred to Sen. Clinton’s laugh as a “cackle.” Separately, a joke by comedian Chris Rock comparing the candidate to the knife-wielding madwoman played by Glenn Close in the film “Fatal Attraction” was picked up and parroted by others in the mainstream media.
American political history is dotted by instances of parties that lost because the candidates that emerged simply couldn’t bring the party together over divisive policy issues.
Could this be the first election where the media making fun of a laugh that pundits described as a “cackle” helped cause partisans of a party to sit on their hands and watch the defeat of their party’s candidate (and perhaps their own hopes to change the direction of the Supreme Court) in a general election?
If that happens, then the REAL “cackle” will come from John McCain.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.