Will Obama Run Like Bill Clinton… or Michael Dukakis?
Democrats are hoping that 2008 will be another 1992, producing a new, young, charismatic president. But the GOP will do its best to replay 1988 instead.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Maybe it was the arugula. Political eons ago, last July, no one thought much of it when Barack Obama inquired in Iowa, “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.” But ten months later Republicans are buzzing about arugula. Why?
Arugula conjured up memories of another gourmet green: Belgian endives. Michael Dukakis asked for some of those in Iowa in 1988. That was the first hint that Democrats and the rest of Americans got that he was out of touch with average voters.
And this possibility, that the near-nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008 could be another Dukakis, has many Republicans excited.
The 1988 election is, of course, one which Republicans would love to replay. On one side was the standard bearer of the Republican Party which had been roughed up by the Iran Contra scandal. On the other was an urban reformer who rarely got ruffled and never angry. The election did not turn much on Reaganomics, the end of the Cold War or other major policy issues, but instead devolved into one of the fiercest episodes in the culture wars. We heard a lot that year about Willie Horton and Dukakis’ membership in the ACLU. George H.W. Bush came from 17 points down to win handily.
Well that sounds just fine to some John McCain supporters. They, after all, have been handed a basket of issues from Reverend Wright to Bill Ayers to Obama’s own condescending remarks about rural Pennsylvanians.
It doesn’t take much creativity to make the argument (and the accompanying TV ads) that Obama is an extreme liberal, out of touch with mainstream values and lacking an appreciation for qualities which make America exceptional. His wife’s derogatory remarks that America has been a “mean” country and her complaints about the horrible burden of paying off Ivy League university student loans has only fed into the argument that her husband is an liberal elitist. If the election could be about all of that, some conservatives muse, McCain might do just fine.
There is even some polling information to support this approach. Nearly half of the voters in Indiana and North Carolina, Democratic primary voters that is, considered the Reverend Wright controversy very or somewhat important. Among those Hillary Clinton won 70% in Indiana and 60% in North Carolina, according to exit polls.
But McCain may not be so lucky as to replay the 1988 election. There is another election the Democrats have in mind, ironically one involving the Clintons. In 1992, an incumbent President George H.W. Bush faced an untested, untried charismatic leader of a new generation. In the midst of an economic recession which was nearly over before it began, Bill Clinton convinced the voters that Bush was the one out of touch, unsympathetic to the concerns of working Americans and bereft of ideas. That was not the Belgian endive election but the year with the supermarket scanner and the shot of Bush checking his watch during a presidential debate. Time was indeed up; Clinton sailed into the White House.
Those are, it seems, two potential paradigms for 2008. But despite the high hopes of many conservatives, 1988 may not be the model for this election. In the midst of an economic recession, a housing crisis and a still unfinished war in Iraq some conservatives rightfully are nervous that the public will not be satisfied, some would say distracted, by another round of the culture wars circa 1988. The public is massively unhappy with the direction of the country. An astonishing 81% of voters according to the April 4 New York Times/CBS poll believe we are on the “wrong track.” If voters perceive that there are huge issues which confront us (economic recovery, terrorism, health care, energy policy, and the future of the Supreme Court, to name a few) it seems a risky tactic for McCain to make this election about small bore issues.
And then, of course, 2008 is just not a good year to be a Republican. David Brooks warns: “Traditional Republicans can beat liberal Democrats when the Republican brand is in healthy shape. That is not the case now.” It is hard to argue with that.
Is this inevitably then a losing year for McCain, another 1992 in the offing? Perhaps not. It is important to recall that Clinton won in 1992 offering a “third way” - a new reform agenda, which seemed moderate and sensible to many independents and infuriated the far Left in his own party.
But wait. That doesn’t sound much like Obama agenda which offers retreat in Iraq, cozy relations with dictators, massive federal intervention in health care, tax increases even in a recession, a large helping of protectionism and judges committed to imposing their own brand of “social justice.”
An argument McCain would be wise to make is that the problem with Obama is not just that he is outside the cultural mainstream, but that his ideas are.
Democrats may be right that this year’s election looks more like 1992 than 1988. But McCain would be smart to respond that he, not Obama, is the harbinger of a new era of reform and the alternative to the failed liberal policies of the past. With a long track record of maverick bipartisanship (on everything from the environment to immigration and Defense Department reform) and Teddy Roosevelt as his model McCain might credibly make just such an appeal.
So if Democrats insist this election is like 1992, McCain could be the Bill Clinton this time. Without all the baggage of course.
Jennifer Rubin is a writer living in Virginia. She is a regular contributor to Human Events, American Spectator and the New York Observer and blogs at Commentary’s Contentions.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
26 Comments
Ed Wallis:About a week ago, the WSJ has a front page article on how some candidates (mentioned: Schwarzennegger, Bloomberg, McCain, Obama) were part of a developing “new center.”
Leaving the first 2 aside, McCain is the only one of the latter 2 which could in any way by my definition be remotely considered “center.” He would be well served - as the author points out - to emphasize how Obama’s policies are far FAR Left, moreso than any reasonable American would wish for…notwithstanding those still enamoured with Socialism.
May 12, 2008 - 4:11 am Jabba the Tutt:Why is the Republican Brand in such bad shape? Zero accomplishments and zero message. You can’t beat something (even something that stinks) with nothing.
May 12, 2008 - 4:23 am WJ:How can you write about Clinton winning the 1992 election and not mention the large impact that Ross Perot had on that race? He got 19% of the popular vote and caused the electoral votes to go to Clinton despite Clinton getting only 43% of the popular vote.
I realize that this is not an in-depth article on the ‘92 election, but not mentioning the key factor in Clinton’s win is a little sloppy.
May 12, 2008 - 5:36 am Valerie:Analogies go only so far. I watched Patrick Buchannan sink the Bush campaign with his “Red Meat” speech at the Republican National Convention. Because I was for Clinton, it didn’t matter much to me, although I had some sympathy for the horrified, responsible, decent Republicans in the audience. This time, the Democratic Party is having one Patrick Buchannan moment after another, what with Rev. Wright, Wm. Ayers and others having far too much fun at Obama’s expense.
If the Republicans fail to educate our younger voters about the Weathermen, and the significance of having a U.S. presidential campaign launched by an unrepentant Weatherman, then shame on them.
May 12, 2008 - 6:04 am David Thomson:The Republicans must force “Barry” Obama to answer the unavoidable question: who are you lying to? Somebody obviously is being deceived. A quintessential example is Austan Goolsby giving the wink-wink/nudge-nudge to the Canadian government concerning Obama’s alleged pro-free trade position. These hints were being conveyed while the Illinois U.S. senator was telling blue collar workers in Ohio that he is adamantly against NAFTA. Obama is something of a Rorschach test candidate. He wants to be perceived as whatever you want him to be. You are also not suppose to ask Obama to be fairly specific with his proposals. Trust in the “great leader” is required.
May 12, 2008 - 6:07 am AJ:“Why is the Republican Brand in such bad shape? Zero accomplishments and zero message. You can’t beat something (even something that stinks) with nothing.”
Huh? McCain, if anything, has a message. Not all conservatives like it, but he has a substantive one, especially on national security.
Obama will lose for three reasons—none of which have to do with skin color, of course. That’s for the media and liberal racists to discuss:
1. NO message (hope and change? wow. I think that was my message when I ran for 4th grade class president)
2. Lack of leadership experience (law school, “community organizer,” prof, unaccomplished state legislator, 2 years as do nothing senator)
3. FAR left politics. (can you imagine the GOP getting away with nominating the most conservative senator in America? nope)
Look, the big city media may want to make this out to be a race, but it’s not. This includes conservatives, who mostly live in big cities, like I do. BUT, I also travel and have family and friends in small town America. They won’t vote for Obama. And again, NOT due to race. See, they understand America better than big city elites. Applebees, Nascar and Walmart is fine with them, as that is America. The GOPers will vote for the moderate and the blue collar working class will NOT vote for Obama. They’ll sit out, support Mccain or Nader. My step-dad, a hard core Korean war Vet Democrat is a perfect example. He hates Obama and his racist wife. He’ll go Nader or sit out. This is typical.
So, though I appreciate the history lesson in this piece (I really do), Obama is no Dukakis or Clinton. You insult those two guys by doing that. ONLY in America can a simpleton with NO message get to the General Election…but he won’t win any states other than IL, OR, CA, WA, MA, MD, DC, etc.
May 12, 2008 - 6:11 am AJ:“An astonishing 81% of voters according to the April 4 New York Times/CBS poll believe we are on the “wrong track.””
I love it! The richest folks in America, who have NO clue about the war or what it’s like to work hard, are upset. Yet, the small town folks whose sons are fighting this war and who scratch for every penny, love America. Orwellian, indeed.
I saw a poll last month (a Pew Poll) saying 84% of Americans are happy. Go read David Brooks. Polls lie. Why anyone heeds them is beyond me. And of course, by asking a question a certain way and to a certain group of 500 folks in two nites, you can make them say anything, Jennifer.
And as for the 1992 comparison, Bush was an inucmbent; McCain is not—despite the unfounded ignorance Obama spews about a “third term for George Bush.”
BTW, why does this pampered elite not call him PRESIDENT Bush?!
May 12, 2008 - 6:15 am Dave:While the Republicans have plenty to choose from to “Willie Hortonize” Obama, don’t be mislead in thinking this election won’t be about issues or policies. While Obama has largely recieved a “free-pass” in that regard, in his run-up to the Democratic nomination, that won’t be the case in the general. He will have to get specific (or at least, MUCH more than he has) and he will come across NOT as the second coming of Bill Clinton, but as the second coming of Jimmy Carter (who you conveniently decided not to include in this “analogy” article).
We could be looking at 1980, not 1988 or 1992!
May 12, 2008 - 8:41 am Moultrie:Wahoo, it’s 1980 for me! NoBama will have to put some ice on his girlyman & female admirers.
May 12, 2008 - 9:22 am always right:At least Dukakis ‘ran’ a state, knew the ins-and-outs to get things done.
What have we in Obama?
May 12, 2008 - 9:24 am Cicero:Obama is simple creature of Black radicals and Liberal-leftist. All dregs of American society gathered around him like flies attracted by a putrid body. A sane society cannot elect as its leader an individual like Obama. There is another explosive factor that should not be underestimated: Hillary, her deadly hate for this parvenu and for her democrat fellows that are going to nominate Obama. Fanaticism of followers of one and other should neither be underestimated. So the nomination of Obama or Hillary will provoke pandemonium and the dénouement will be extremely dramatic. In this situation there is no alternative to McCain. He is old and ill but, differently of Obama and Hillary, conserves clear mind and isn’t eager after power for power like them.
May 12, 2008 - 12:39 pm David P:….we know from which flock this guy hails, don’t paint him to be something he has yet to become, not after saturating himself for the past 20 years with the likes the most divisive characters in America’s extremist culture, then to divorce yourself from that culture when the spotlights on and say your a friend to everything your ideology would have you despise…
May 12, 2008 - 12:42 pm AJ:“While Obama has largely recieved a “free-pass” in that regard, in his run-up to the Democratic nomination, that won’t be the case in the general.”
I keep hearing that, then I keep waiting. Do you REALLY think left-wing operatives like Blitzer, Olbermann, Cooper or Matthews will EVER do anything to ruin the Empty Suit’s chances? Nope. And since Obama won’t go on Fox, and somehow this is allowed, he’ll coast thru with no tough questions…but he still won’t win. Americans are not that dumb. Heck, even France and Germany are not electing radical lefties these days. The left has been wrong in history so often that at some point, unless you’re a professor, you understand.
And yes, Dukakis did run a state. Obama has never done a thing of note in his life. Amazing. Good work, Dems. You’ve chosen another loser simply b/c he’s far left and black.
May 12, 2008 - 1:07 pm Michael Canzano:As a Conservative who was once a Democrat (not a Liberal) , I am astounded at the lack of “Common Sense” in Liberal thinking. In fact Liberals have morphed “Common Sense” to “Uncommon Sense”. An excellent example is their choices of candidates for President of the United States of America, the Nation on the Planet closest to Heaven.
May 12, 2008 - 1:55 pm Dave:American Christian Infidel
AJ- I was not talking about the MSM with regard to getting a “free-pass”. Absolutely, the liberal media will give him that…I meant the voters themselves, and as you so succinctly put it:
“Americans are not that dumb.”
But then, it’s pretty much always been that way… thank God for the internet!
May 12, 2008 - 2:16 pm Danae:I just want to point out that it is historically incorrect to say the economy was in recession during the election in 1992. It was not at all in recession when Nov. came around, but the press and the Clinton campaign kept up the lie as it was a push button issue. The economy had grown for 2 Quarters at that point and the 1st Bush administration is the one responsible for it. The Clinton White House took credit for it. The Press apparently still believes the lie!
May 12, 2008 - 2:51 pm Valjean:1988?
Try a little earlier: an ultra-liberal, anti-war Democrat from the Midwest comes out of nowhere, mouths all the right platitudes, hobnobs with Hollywood, shocks everyone by running the tables in the primaries over experienced competition, is the darling of the press and the “youth vote”, and runs against a stodgy, dodgy (and admittedly, incumbent) Republican.
Oh, and loses 49 states.
McGovern in ‘72: Amnesty, Acid, and Abortion.
Obama in ‘08: Surrender, Stereotyping, and South Side “Spirituality”.
May 12, 2008 - 3:17 pm John Samford:Jabba the Tutt;
50 million (and counting) humans freed from dictators. The greatest economic growth in American history. The Supreme Court nudged back on a Constitutional path.
May 12, 2008 - 4:04 pm John Samford:I would go on, but I’ll let you list the things you think PRESIDENT Bush did wrong. I would onsider those things right.
It’s called politics. When you grow up, you will understand what I’m talking about. Meanwhile, what are you going to do about your BDS when the B is gone? Let go of your hate, it is bad for you.
Ohhhh….BAMA is beating McCain this week. He was losing last week. The polls will vary from weekk to week for the next 3 months. Normal people are not paying any attention right now.
May 12, 2008 - 4:25 pm Mickey:When the General Election gets here Ohhh…..BAMA has a problem. His core group is about 30 million strong (blacks, college professors, Yuppies and under 25). He needs at least 50 million to win. Where are those other 20 million votes?
Umion/blue collar workers? Nope, exit polls show that they aren’t being taken in by Ohhh…BAMA’s glibness. Feminists? Nope if Hillery doessn’t win, 51% of those polled are staying home on that first Tuesday in November.
Latinos? Nope. Nascar voters? Nope. Southerners? Nope. White Males? Nope.
Unless there is a major increase in One-armed, lesbian dwarfs it looks like Ohhhhhhh……..BAMA is going to come up short.
Will he challenge the Duk’s record of futility? That depends on Big Mac. BIg Mac has a smaller core group then Ohhh….BAMA, although that is offset by him not being as divisive.
McCain is the safe choice. A majority of people past the pimple stage of life understand that most change is bad and safety is something worth having.
John: you have forgotten in your list the political emigrants (and in the US there are many political emigrants: Cuban, Iranian, Chinese, Russian…) that see in a sympathizer of Islamofascist and communist regimes like Obama their natural enemy. Do not forget as well the Christians that see in this new “messiah” the Antichrist. So poor OOO Ba-Ba-Ma from Ka-Ka-Ma has many enemies, but his most dangerous foe is Mickey Mouse!
May 13, 2008 - 1:49 am Michel de Notre-Dame:To John Samford:
Do you remember Catherine de’ Medici? I am not sure that you have read my response. So I repeat it, but in a slightly altered form. Queen Catherine de’ Medici invented many things, but the stiletto heels was her most witty invention. This stiletto was extremely thin, like Florentine alchemists needles. So when she touched slightly somebody, he was dead before he realized it. Hillary utilizes the same kind of stiletto. Poor Obama! He is dead and doesn’t know it.
May 13, 2008 - 4:19 am always right:To John Samford,
Obama may only need the 30 millions he already has (firmly) in his pocket.
Count on the msm in general election to make GOP candidate as unpalatable to ‘the base’ as possible. Election 06 redux, then Obama dosen’t need the extra # you were counting.
/Besides, he could always use the voters from those extra 7 states he recently annexed.
May 13, 2008 - 8:54 am Pyrrho:To “always right”:
What stupid calculations! Can you perhaps calculate the years that remain to you?
May 13, 2008 - 1:53 pm Stella:Obama is arrogant and an empty suit. He is no Clinton.
May 20, 2008 - 10:47 pm