Democratic Fratricide

Things ought to be set up for a Democratic landslide for the presidential race in 2008. Yet the most recent polling shows a dead heat between John McCain and either of his two potential rivals. Some surveys even show him moving ahead into a slim lead. It is early yet, with the election more than seven months away, but McCain and the Republicans have to be encouraged so far.

All the conventional markers point to a big Democratic win. We are finishing a president's second term, and only once in the past five times has a party been able to win three in a row. The incumbent Republican is extremely unpopular. His party was trounced in the most recent congressional midterms. We are in the midst of an unpopular war, a war the Republican candidate supports. The economy is in recession, the candidate by his own admission doesn't know much about the economy, and no incumbent party has retained the White House during a recession since 1908. The candidate has yet to unify the Republican Party; 52% of Republicans still say they would rather someone else was their nominee.

Democratic primary enthusiasm has been running high; their turnouts exceeded the Republicans' by 70% and their fundraising by 100% when both nomination fights were still competitive. Surveys consistently show the voters more in agreement with the Democratic positions on most issues, including the economy, Iraq, health care, education, the environment, civil liberties and fiscal policy. Yet though they show a generic preference of 9% for congressional Democrats, they reveal a tie for president, at best. What accounts for the discrepancy?

The simple and obvious explanation is fratricide. Earlier samples showed both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton defeating McCain in head to head contests. That is no longer the case. As the Democratic race has proceeded, both candidates have become increasingly effective at attacking each other. Ironically, the unity among Democrats and their two major candidates on the issues has left but one way to highlight their differences, and that has meant raising questions about competence, credibility and personality. Obama continually makes the case that Clinton personifies an old politics, in the thrall of special interests and tied to rancorous Washington disputes of the past. He hints that she represents division and cannot appeal to independents or the young. Clinton paints Obama as flashy but vacuous, untested and unready to assume the office of president. She insinuates that he cannot appeal to the party's blue-collar core or to Hispanics, the nation's largest minority. Both onslaughts have had effect.

Given their immense advantages on the issues and the fierce determination of the Democratic faithful to win this one, there is still time for the eventual nominee to repair the damage and emerge victorious in November. That will, however, require the runner-up to bury the hatchet and offer solid support. But the nastier things get the more uncertain that becomes. The sooner the fighting ends the better for the party's chances. Yet with Clinton looking very strong in Pennsylvania it is a safe bet the demolition derby will go on until May 6 at the earliest. Meanwhile, John McCain remains an increasingly happy spectator. It has been said that politics is the art of the possible, and if so then Sen. McCain grows a little more artistic every day.