Part of the propaganda of the campaign, oft-repeated in the blogosphere, was that Sen. Obama offered the possibility of "transformational"--as opposed to mere "transactional"--leadership. A transactional leader works within the system, while a transformational leader changes the system. A transactional leader is "business as usual," while a transformational leader overwhelms "business as usual" with the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
My own view is that all leadership positions in a democracy are "transactional." These leaders are elected through the processes of the system and they're there to make the system work. FDR and Reagan, contra Sen. Obama, were not transformational leaders. They didn't change the system at all. What they did was make the system more responsive to certain constituencies--people affected by the depression in the case of FDR, and white people who felt they were over-taxed in the case of Reagan. That is not transformational. It is simply democracy doing what democracy does.
There is no such thing as a "transformational" elected official. "Transformational" leadership only comes from outside the system. Martin Luther King and Lech Walesa are examples. They led popular movements, movements that were powerful enough to (temporarily) overwhelm the system. When Walesa became a government official, he ceased being a transformational leader, and became a transactional one.
In the Hebrew tradition, Moses was another transformational leader, who, when in an actual position of power, had to become a transactional one. His "personal awesomeness" no longer cut the mustard when the people got hungry, or when potholes needed to be fixed. The great prophets all came from outside the system. As soon as prophets became institutionalized, they were no longer real prophets. If you'll notice, the prophets who were inside the system--the professional prophets, the ones on the government payroll--were all false prophets. Only those who stayed outside the "establishment" remained true prophets.
Now, there's not a thing wrong with transactional leaders. Indeed, it is through "transactions" that things actually get done. This is why Hillary Clinton was completely correct to say that Martin Luther King's dream "began to be realized" through the work of President Johnson and the legislative process. What we need are not "transformational" leaders elected to work within the system. We need "transformational" leaders on the outside creating pressure for change. In public office, we need astute "transactional" leaders who are able to discern the political landscape, and, working with a variety of conflicting pressures and constituencies, are able to make changes that reflect the will of the people.
That was one piece of propaganda floating around. Another was that Hillary voters were "racists." (Some progressives are never happier than when they're calling somebody else a racist.) Obama supporter, David Sirota, had said that said that when the African-American population of a certain state reaches a certain level, it inspired a backlash from whites.
The Race Chasm - states with more than 7 percent but less than 17 percent black populations - is where Clinton has won three quarters of her states - and that's no accident. These are states where black-white racial politics very much exist, but where the black vote is not big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote. And that white vote is being motivated by the Clintons.
In other words, whenever Sen. Obama lost a primary, it was because white voters are racist. Josh Marshall chimed in twice in support of Sirota. (Bob Herbert took a similar line in the New York Times.) My comment at the time:
Sirota and Marshall apparently believe that their fellow Democrats are a bunch of racists. Their problem is that they can't conceive of a non-racist who doesn't support Obama. What's more, they apparently believe that all these racist Democrats running around out there are also exceptionally broad-minded about voting for a woman. Maybe they've uncovered an entirely new demographic--the racist feminist!
These arguments were being put forward because the next string of primaries were in states that had a lot of white working-class Democrats. Hillary was doing well here, and Sen. Obama wanted, if possible, to try to break through with the working-class.
His now famous remark in San Francisco didn't help him any. “It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Frankly, I don't think the Obama campaign ever planned on doing that well with the white working-class vote anyway, and hadn't really needed to until the campaign moved into the industrial states of the midwest and Ohio valley. They seemed to hold this cohort at arm's length until this point in the campaign. David Axelrod gave away the point when he said that the white working-class usually votes Republican anyway.
Meanwhile, some in the Obama campaign were countering that Hillary really wasn't much of a Democrat at all. Markos, a former Republican, had endorsed a commenter who had said that Hillary was no longer a Democrat. Obama supporter and DNC member, Donna Brazile, had said that Hillary's supporters "don't care" about the Democratic Party. It was getting tough out there. (It should be noted that, at this point in the campaign, Hillary was polling better against John McCain than Sen. Obama was.)
For the last ten days or so before the Pennsylvania primary, both candidates were criss-crossing the state. Both also, incidentally, refused to participate in the practice of "street money," sometimes called "walking around money." This is cash that is spread around to encourage voter turn-out, and had long been something of an election day tradition in Philadephia and Pittsburgh. This time around, both campaign said no.
Most pre-primary polls showed Clinton with a narrow lead, something between 2 and 6 percent. I predicted a win of between 8-10% for Clinton in Pennsylvania on the basis of her ability to close. The final tally was a 9% Clinton victory.
I attributed her splendid showing to this near-iconic photograph which made most of the state's newspapers in the last few days of the primary campaign. She looked ebullient and right at home. Her grit and stamina, in the face of continuing calls for her to exit the race, were starting to make an impression on more and more people. As one person put it, "My husband—a Republican looking for change—voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton during last month’s Ohio primary. He defends and admires Clinton for digging in her heels and refusing to be pushed out of the Democratic presidential race."
Meanwhile, Rev. Jeremiah Wright was back in the news because of his speech at the National Press Club at the end of the month. The speech itself was good. (My thoughts on the speech itself are here.)
The fireworks came in the question-and-answer period that followed in which he seemed to defend Louis Farrakhan and also seemed to defend his earlier comment that the government had deliberately inflicted AIDS on the black community. Shortly thereafter, Sen. Obama cut his ties with his former pastor, and also resigned from membership at Trinity United Church of Christ.
Hillary's campaign was seeming energized. (She had recently demoted Mark Penn, which helped.) By contrast, the Obama campaign was starting to look tired. Comment at the time:
His campaign seems sleep-deprived and off-key. When it's pointed out that Obama has trouble with the white working class--poorly, in fact, with all the non-black working class--his campaign manager says we don't need the working class anyway because they vote Republican. (They don't, they're Democrats, and we can't win without them--and shouldn't.) Even this gaffe by Axelrod was better than a more typical Obama supporter reaction, which is to call the white working class morons and racists...
Yes, he's still the frontrunner, if you go by the 100 votes or so that he leads among pledged delegates, which he won by getting all the liberals in Utah and Idaho to show up at a caucus. But, by any normal yardstick, you'd have to say that Hillary Clinton has all the momentum. Reclusiveleftist runs it down:
Old Pro (from '68): You’re talking about nominating the guy who lost New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Florida? Jesus! You’re outta your mind!
Violet: But what about his delegates?
Old Pro: Fight it out at the convention if you have to. That’s what conventions are for. Look, you don’t get to be the nominee because you were popular in February in Utah. For chrissake, if you can’t win the Democratic primaries in California or New York or Massachusetts or Florida or Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania, you don’t get to be the Democratic nominee. Unless you’re Hubert Humphrey. Wait a minute, Humphrey isn’t still alive, is he?
Violet: No. But the party bosses really love Candidate A. They say Candidate B needs to drop out so Candidate A can be the nominee.
Old Pro: They want the winner of all the big states to drop out so the party favorite from February can be the nominee? ...He's had four tries to "close the deal" and hasn't. His polls are sagging. He has to suffer the indignity of Karl Rove crying crocodile tears for him. Even Markos is on his back for appearing on Fox News and then blowing it once he got there.
Meanwhile, his opponent seems ebullient, and, more and more, people are admiring her grit and toughness. She now leads among independents. In the big states--all except Illinois won by Hillary--she closes well and wins the undecideds. People are starting to notice: The advantage is shifting to Clinton.
So it seemed to me at the time.
Comments