The two major party representatives in the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama and John McCain, weren't completely in step with their parties respective elite and general ideology. That is to say, in comparison to nominees in previous elections, these two candidates didn't bring together their parties coalitions and the many factions contained within quite as unanimously.
On the Democratic side, the primaries became a two candidate race after John Edwards was forced to remove himself from consideration. In the invisible primary, discussed at some length in the Cohen piece, Hillary Clinton was the presumptive party favorite who had garnered the majority of the major party endorsements, although it certainly wasn't a consensus and there was some trepidation within the party ranks. However, after the initial primaries, Obama quickly emerged and it became clear to most that he was a polished campaigner and had put together an impressive organization. I feel in the end that the Democratic Party must have realized that Obama represented their best chance of taking back the White House, even though he wasn't a creature of the party and the party establishment may have been somewhat hesitant to support him.
On a quick note, I recall supporting Obama initially because I believed he would fare better than Hillary in the general election, as there was more ammunition for the Republicans to fire at her. In addition, a polarizing candidate such as Hillary would have provided the Republicans with additional motivation to rally around McCain more completely in an effort to keep her out of the White House.
On the Republican side, there were a group of possible nominees who differed significantly in style and ideology. Eventually, McCain survived the scrum and the party, somewhat begrudgingly, mobilized around him. Obviously, McCain has developed a reputation in the Senate for being a moderate, and he has certainly alienated many elements of the Republican Party. However, in the general election, McCain began to sound more and more like a typical Republican, parroting the Bush administration on the economy and Iraq, and became someone the right would approve of. In the end, I believe he was more an agent of his party than his Democratic counterpart.
In regard to advances in technology, I feel that this has caused the balance between party-centered campaigns and those that focus on the candidate to be more elusive and difficult to achieve. The Internet and other modern forms of communication seem to have produced more campaigns revolving around the candidate. As detailed in Teachout, parties have yet to take full advantage of the organizing potential of the Internet and haven't harnessed its complete power, instead using it mainly as a fundraising mechanism. Obama explored this to great effect in his campaign, as he generated much enthusiasm and raised a staggering amount of money through online means.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Was Obama less of an agent simply because he was less moderate?
ReplyDeleteObama has been an elected Democrat since 1996. He gained national prominence by speaking at the 2004 party convention. In what way does this not make him a creature of his party? Remind me of the famous challenger for any office that jumped up and down and said I represent the "politics of usual."
ReplyDeleteOf course, every candidate is going to claim to be unique or different from all the rest. Anyone who aspires to be president is going to have to utilize major party machinery to an extent, as a vehicle. This does not necessarily make them a complete party man or women. There can be degrees to just how beholden a politician is to their party. Obviously, Obama is firmly entrenched in the Democratic Party. However, the perception of many in the general populace was of him as a true agent of change, and not a typical politician.
ReplyDeleteSara would be my wife. I failed to log in and she is the default account.
ReplyDelete