THE LONG POLITICAL WINTER OF OUR DISCONTENT
THE LONG POLITICAL WINTER OF OUR DISCONTENT
By
Ken Eliasberg
This has been the longest political season of my life time, and while probably the most unpredictable (although I do remember the Dewey-Truman imbroglio quite vividly), it has gotten tedious at times. I hesitate to use the term boring because it certainly has not been that. But it has seemed to test our endurance, if not our patience. Ithas been more like an electathon than an electo dash. The length of time (almost 2 years in the making; it seemed to start almost before the 2006 fiasco ended) certainly tests the voter’s capacity to remain awake, let alone alert. When you compound the length of time with the round-the-clock coverage provided by cable T.V.,
I found myself wondering whether it would ever end.
What you have had are long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of real excitement — the most recent of which was Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barak Obama. I would have given anything to be a fly on the wall of one of the Clintons when that bloviating bundle of baloney cast his considerable bulk behind Barak. I’ll bet it’s been a long time since you have heard that kind of vulgarity — all coming from Hillary (who I understand has a mouth that desperately needs to be soaped down — and vulgarity is the least of her problems).
There have been some interesting miscalculations, some bad guesses, some heated exchanges, a glimpse of the Clinton’s back stabbing techniques (Barak must really scare them for them to bring out the real ugly artillery this early in the campaign — all the while, of course, denying any complicity), and some surprises.
The most interesting — and costly — miscalculation (for want of a better term) is that of Rudy Guiliani (one of my 2 personal favorites; the other being Mitt Romney). Guiliani chose to sit out the first half dozen or so primaries, putting all his chips on the Florida rung of the political roulette wheel. Unfortunately it did not pay off — Florida was a major disappointmentfor him. He campaigned there — almost by himself for the better part of 6 weeks — and he did not come close to winning.
Which raises the second interesting aspect of the campaign — bad guesses, i.e. the unreliability of polls. You will recall that just prior to the New Hampshire Primary, the polls had installed Barak Obama as 10 to 12 point favorite. He lost — convincingly to Hillary. Along similar lines, as recently as November of this past year, Rudy had been installed as the national favorite, with a convincing lead in the polls. By the time Florida rolled around, the big question almost became — who’s Rudy?
The heated exchanges were between Barak and the Wicked Witch of the East, on the Democratic side and Romney and McCain on the Republican side. There was a difference in the quality of these unpleasantries. The Romney/McCain dust up was one your routine political alley fights, i.e. you’re a liberal and/or a liar; no, you’re a liberal and a liar, etc. Boring but predictable. The Obama/Clinton run-in was far more vicious and deceitful. How could it be anything else; the Clintons were involved. And this time, it is possible, though unlikely, that the Clintons may have been a bit too heavy handed in playing their hand. Rumor has it that, by playing the race card — and make no mistake about it, they played the race card — they may have offended many of their key constituents (not to mention blowing their cover). Rumor has it that it was their use of race that moved Ted Kennedy to come out as early as he did for Obama. And not to be lost in the Kennedy/Clinton kerfuffle was Tony Morrison’s endorsement of Obama. I guess when it came right down to it, she chose real black over black light (i.e. you will recall that it was Morrison who labeled Clinton the first black president).
Frankly, I was surprised that the Clintons displayed such poor judgment in this matter. Their use of race was both transparent and abhorrent. And if there is one demographic sector of their constituency that they can ill afford to alienate it is the black sector — a sector that votes 90% to 10% in favor of the Democrat (giving the Democratic nominee — as I have previously observed — a 9,000,000 vote head start right out of the blocks).
And, as I noted, a few surprises, and the big ones for me was the choice made by drop out candidates — specifically, Duncan Hunter and Rudy Guiliani, both of whom I respect. Hunter, in dropping out, threw his weight (which certainly seemed considerably less than hefty — by the time he dropped out people were asking, who’s Hunter?) to Huckabee. I’m certain that this was a principled choice — because Hunter is a principled man. That said, I don’t question his principles; I question his judgment, i.e. I can’t think of anything more calculated to marginalize your political relevance than supporting the Huckster (no matter how nice a guy he might be). Then Rudy, who was my first choice (based on the almost miraculous job he did in New York during his Mayorality in restoring that city to its magical place among the world’s greatest metropolitan centers). In leaving, he threw his weight to McCain, which while personally disappointing, is politically understandable; he’s looking to be a kingmaker (thereby possibly securing a position in a future McCain presidency). Frankly, that choice both surprised and disappointed me; I was hoping that he would cast his fortunes with Romney, who I regard as an infinitely better choice.
As I have noted, the race so far has been many things — many revealing things — but it has not been boring. And it promises to get even more interesting as we get closer to the finish line. Possibly, one of the most interesting prospects of this unending (and almost unendurable) political season is that each Party may wind up with a candidate that large portions of their respective bases really neither like nor want (but very possibly deserve), i.e. Hillary Clinton and John McCain.