Gary Hart: Obama Won't Fade
The Barack of '84 Thinks Hillary is Mondale Without the Locked-In Superdelegates
The Super Tuesday stalemate has only reinforced comparisons between the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama contest and the fight for the Democratic nomination 1984, another one-on-one race that pitted an insurgent against the party establishment -- and one that wasn’t settled until the party’s July convention in San Francisco.
In that ‘84 campaign, the Obama role was played by Gary Hart, whose “new ideas” fueled a stunning 13-point victory in New Hampshire that rocketed him to the top of the race and, within weeks, brought Walter Mondale -- who had entered the campaign as the most prohibitive favorite in primary history -- to the brink of capitulation. A Hart sweep of Super Tuesday in early March 1984 would have flushed the former vice president from contention, but when Mondale narrowly won two states that day (to Hart’s seven), the press declared him reborn. When the primaries and caucuses finally finished in June, it was a draw: Both men had won about the same number of pledged delegates and Hart had even edged Mondale in the combined popular vote.
But the nomination was Mondale’s because most of the superdelegates -- party leaders and elected officials who account for 20 percent of all convention votes -- had been with him from the start, long before Hart had emerged as a viable option.
“My wife and I called every one of them personally between the California primary (on June 2) and the convention, and overwhelmingly they said, ‘I wish I hadn’t committed to Mondale, but I’m committed,’” Hart said.
Even though polls the weekend before the convention showed Hart vastly outperforming Mondale against Ronald Reagan, the superdelegates stuck to their commitments, Mondale was nominated, and the party suffered a 49-state landslide in the fall.
Hart, who teaches at the University of Colorado-Denver, is now supporting Obama. There are clear similarities between the old Hart coalition and the one Obama is building this year: college-educated voters, political independents, and younger voters. The Clinton and Mondale bandwagons also look alike, filled with members of core Democratic constituencies: women, Hispanics, lower-income white voters. (The main difference: Hart struggled to attract black support, which Obama has practically monopolized.)
Hart sees the Clinton-Obama race playing out the way his did, but with the potential for a very different ending.
“It will go to the convention like it did in ‘84, but (Obama’s) got a much better chance of getting support from superdelegates than I did, because most of them were lined up with Fritz before New Hampshire.”
That’s the key difference: While Hart had toiled in virtual anonymity before New Hampshire made him a star, superdelegates have been aware of Obama from the beginning of this race. And they may be savvier in 2008 about not lining up so quickly behind the establishment favorite. Superdelegates were a new creation in 1984.
“I assume (Hillary) and her husband are on the phone with them now, and they’re saying, ‘Remember when I had you to the White House,’ or ‘Remember when I campaigned for you,’” Hart said.
Obama’s pitch, Hart believes, is his ability to attract independents and Republicans to the ticket in the fall.
“It’s going to be a question of loyalty versus electability,” he said, “because it’s going to be clear to everyone by then that (Obama) is the strongest general election candidate.”
The electability argument, he stressed, is not just about whether either candidate is capable of winning the general election; it’s a matter of what effect their presence will have on other Democratic candidates who will be on the ballot with the ultimate nominee -- more than a few of whom will be superdelegates at the convention.
“If some of them are elected officials who will be up in ‘08, they might be persuaded,” said Hart. “The idea is not just to win -- it’s not to get dragged down.”
That might explain why so many prominent Democrats from red states -- like Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius or Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson -- have endorsed Obama, and why Obama won massive victories on Super Tuesday in Republican bastions like North Dakota, Alaska, Utah and Idaho (with a staggering 81 percent). Even if those states will be written off by Democrats in the fall, Hart said, picking a presidential nominee who can at least keep the bleeding to a minimum makes a big difference to Democratic candidates.
He offered his own personal experience as a senator from Colorado: “In 1980, I ran for re-election, and I had to do so on a ticket that included Jimmy Carter, who was very unpopular in my state. I had to run 26 points ahead of him in order to win. That is not something that is easy to do.”
One of the reasons Hart is so confident that the ‘08 race will last to the convention is Clinton’s ability to retain support from most of the core Democratic groups that Mondale did, which gives her a considerable leg-up -- as it did for Mondale -- in some of the biggest delegate prizes on the map, thereby making up for Obama’s considerable advantage in many smaller and mid-size states.
“I think that support has always been with her,” he said. “The question was whether it was going to erode and slip away, and at least at this stage, in states like Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. It has not.”
Looking at the upcoming primaries, Hart said he believes that Obama “has got to broaden his appeal to the Hispanic community,” especially if he wants to compete in the March 4 Texas primary. The other big states on the horizon include Ohio, also on the 4th, and Pennsylvania, which suddenly looks like it will be relevant on April 22 -- after a five-week gap without a single nominating contest. Clinton enjoys the support of both states’ Democratic governors: Ted Strickland in Ohio and Ed Rendell in Pennsylvania.
“I lost Pennsylvania, but won Ohio -- so that’s winnable for him,” Hart said. “Pennsylvania is a little tougher because it’s a state where there is considerable machine strength.”
The only way the race won’t reach the convention, according to Hart, is if Clinton runs out of money -- something that suddenly seems possible, with the news that she loaned her campaign $5 million last month and that key staffers are working for her without pay -- or if one of the candidates makes “a fatigue-induced mistake” that gets blown up by the media. Hart has some experience with this: In the final days of the ‘84 marathon, he made an off-hand remark about New Jersey and toxic waste that ended up dominating the news and quite possibly cost him the state -- the only one of the final 12 contests that he lost.
“These candidates are really, really, really tired,” he said. “And I don’t think most people and most journalists understand that.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
In Hart's quote:
“I assume (Hillary) and her husband are on the phone with them now, and they’re saying, ‘Remember when I had you to the White House,’ or ‘Remember when I campaigned for you,’”
Am I correct to assume that Hart used the pronoun 'she' which you substituted, in paranthesis, "Hillary"?
It's disrespectful to refer to her by her first name in an article, outside the confines of a verbatim quote or to distinguish between Bill or Hillary, the former of which is not mentioned in the article.
why is it disrespectful to call her hillary when she has printed about 12 million campaign signs that all say "hillary" instead of "clinton?"
P.S.
I don't buy the "Obama is the only one who can compete in red states" argument.
His votes in places like Alaska and Utah were paltry.
Also, Clinton won a couple of red states too, and received more votes that the GOP victor.
In fact, in red states where Clinton came in second place, she still had more votes than the GOP winner.
It's disrespectful because Steve Kornacki's piece isn't campaign literature. It's a piece of journalism. And while each publication has its own standards, I never thought of Kornacki's writing, or the Observer's for that matter, to be irreverent and snarky.
Hillary I predict will be elected president... all right one for the working gals!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with Gary Hart. This is a repeat of the 1984 election. Hillary Bill Clinton even used the expression "Where is the beef?" in New Hampshire a few weeks ago.
I also agree with him that Hillary will lose badly in red states and take down the Democratic candidates with her.
There's nobody who can mobilize the Republicans more than Hillary Bill Clinton.
Besides, if The Democrats want change they're not going to get it with the female part of the Clinton dynasty. Change comes from new people with new attitude and new ideas.
Never thought of that. good point. It should read:
“I assume [Senator Clinton] and her husband are on the phone with them now, and they’re saying, ‘Remember when I had you to the White House,’ or ‘Remember when I campaigned for you,’”
or something along those lines.
Having been a loyal, 20 year-old Hart supporter, not only in 1984, but also in 1988, I can envision a whole generation of young politically enthused "new" voters becoming jaded, "turned off and tuned out", to our electoral process if the superdelegates derail Senator Obama as they did Senator Hart.
I know how devastated I felt, betrayed by the process I was eager to be an active part of. There is still a residual bitterness today that I have to keep in check. I find it hard to get too excited about being able to really make change in America. I constantly find myself thinking "What if" Hart had beaten Reagan? The world would be such a better place today.
I hope Sen. Hart is right, that Obama won't fade, because Sen. Clinton and her machine play the old game of politics, heavy-handed, manipulative and full of promises and half-truths.
McCain vs. Clinton = Reagan vs. Mondale
You do the math from there.
It is tempting to characterize the 2008 race as a repeat of 1984. Like Mondale, Hillary was well known nationally coming into the race. However, Obama, like Hart, was a relative newcomer to national politics. The differences between 1984 and 2008, though, are significant. Mondale was Vice-President in an administration that was wildly unpopular. In contrast, Hillary was first lady during the Clinton years which, in many ways, was a very successful presidency. She has also been a surprisingly effective senator from New York. Therefore, the Mondale/Hillary comparison -- which may be intended by Hart as a subtle dig -- is inapt.
Obama won Idaho (all 12 people who voted there) by a staggering 81%. Wow. I'm impressed. He also won Nebraska (all 18 people who voted there) by a stunning majority. Wow. I'm impressed. Oh...and South Carolina? The only state that never votes Democrat...Obama won by a landslide. Right. And, in November, South Carolina will do what it always does: vote Redneck.
Electability? Clinton. Period. Go away Hart: you lost. And, so will Obama.
If Hillary is the nominee it'll be a repeat of 1984. And I'll tell why: Assuming Hillary gets the nomination thru the superdelegates, it'll be a lot of bitterness on behalf of the Black people.Many Blacks will sit home and this is something no Democrat can afford.Look for another landslide if Hillary gets the nomination. And if McCain is smart, he can give the VP position to Condoleeza Rice, thus stealing a substantial part of the Black vote.
You want four more years of Republicans in the White House? Nominate Clinton. It's that simple. Even the Republicans see that she is their only hope.
"Obama won Idaho (all 12 people who voted there) by a staggering 81%. Wow. I'm impressed. He also won Nebraska (all 18 people who voted there) by a stunning majority. Wow. I'm impressed. Oh...and South Carolina? The only state that never votes Democrat...Obama won by a landslide. Right. And, in November, South Carolina will do what it always does: vote Redneck."
Great logic there. And so what if Hillary wins NY and CA? You don't think Obama will carry those states? Oh, and BTW, Hillary is runing behind McCain in FL AND MI, so I really don't see where having her run is an advantage. Also, check out the polls showing Senate candiates with either Obama or HIllary as the nominee. They are on average boossted by 7 points if Obama is the nominee (ie who has the coattails?)
In answer to Jason, alot of people will be dissatisfied not just black people. The non-black voters that chose Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire, Kansas not to mention the 43% of the non-black vote Obama got in GA as well as numerous other states will not be happy at all. There is an insidious and dangerous form of rascism permeating your comment and the mainstream media assertions that Obamas support emanates from his "core" base aka black. Obama disproved that theory long ago when he was elected Senator from Illinois. Its time you and others embraced or at least understand the dynamic of whats going on here. This man is a trancendental and transformational politician. Heretofore an oxymoron if there ever was one. One other thing - your throwing Condeleeza Rice into the mix is another example of abject ignorance or rascism, you decide. Unfortunately, in my opinion as I have alot of respect and admiration for Ms. Rice, she is overwhelmingly disliked in the black community. So adding her to a ticket would net the Republicans nothing. Next time you reach, reach for a more obvioius safe choice like Colin Powell or why not Charles Barkley, hes black and I believe Republican. According to your premise Barkley would go over well with the black audience you speak of.
"all right one for the working gals!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Yeah! Because just like her you've got 5 million dollars to donate to her campaign. She's just another one of the girls.
Barring African Americans Obama's support is among affluent liberals. These are people whose lives will be unaffected by a new Republican administration. Many of them probably voted for Nader... Their kids did not die in Iraq.
Obama says "we are the hope we have been waiting for". Can any one explain what this drivel means? He has a good delivery in his speeches. But sometimes liberals confuse the melody with the lyrics.
Here are cold hard facts folks. McCain is the one Republican who can attract Latinos. Obama cannot connect with them because of the lack of substance in his speeches. If the Democrats get anything less than 80% of the Latino vote, we are at war with Iran.
In response to Charles: The point I'm trying to make is that if Hillary is the nominee she'll lose all Red States and Blue States alike. The Republicans hate her and if she gets the nomination with dirty tricks, many Democrats will not go to vote for her: Whites and Black.
Simply, we're not going to get a change from the wife of the former boyfriend of Monica Lewskinski.
To anonymous who says it is "disrespectful" to refer to Hillary by her first name, pray why do all her publicity material, campaign buttons, stickers including website refer to her by her first name? So what's the gripe.
Does anyone ever wonder why the Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against Hillary? Did it ever occur to anyone that Republicans HATE Hillary! I was a Republican for years. I have many, many Republican friends. I ask them, "Would you vote for Obama?" Their replies range from "maybe" to "yes." Maybe a couple of "no's" for the die-hards. Yet, TO A PERSON, they all say they would NEVER vote for Hillary. Ever! I hope Democrats don't underestimate the depth of hatred that Republicans have for them. Want to unite and galvanize them? Nominate Hillary.
Good article. Obama rules!!! hillary drools!!!
Ever wonder why Barack is winning all the red states that have open primaries and caucuses? The republicans in those states have been voting for him because they know they can easily beat him in November. Barack reminds of an old saying, "High hat and no underwear!!"
Dear Gary, you are a loser just like Obama. You two can commiserate once Clinton trounces him in early March.
I guess no one can explain to me what "we are the hope we have been waiting for" means? An inconvenient truth about the witless messiah?
these small states count. this is how bush won the 2004 election without winning new york and california. and it can be done in the primaries as well. --easily due to proportional rep.
it is a key point that obama has done well in places like missouri (which he won) because missouri had an open primary. and i believe idaho and kansas did as well.
Does anyone who's thrashing the Obama campaign pay attention to Sen. Clinton's unfavorables? They're HUGE for a candidate who's never run for an executive seat. Nothing, Nothing, NOTHING unites the conservatives quite like having the Clintons to fight against. (And when you take a look at reports and polls all across the country, they'll tell you the exact same thing.)
This doesn't mean Sen. Clinton isn't a good candidate.
It doesn't change the fact that Sen. Clinton qualified to be president.
It just means Sen. Clinton would lose. (This isn't just media hype. The national polls relating to a McCain vs. Clinton election are virtually unchanged since 2000, before anyone had even heard of Barack Obama).
The Democratic Party has sent two well established, policy-specific, bright, experienced candidates as their nominees to national office for two straight elections.
Neither of them won.
Obama has consistently posted better numbers against McCain than Clinton.
Since that's whom the Democrats have to beat, why shouldn't he be the candidate?
The iron rule of politics remains the same: Those who do not win do not govern.
I'd like to govern in 2009.
As for the inevitable bashing this is likely to earn me, I ask that everyone do me a small favor: Remember this article if and (likely) when Sen. Clinton wins the nomination and loses the general election. It will be the first in an incredibly long list of I-told-you-so's written from individuals all across the political spectrum.
Well I'm glad the Anonymous poster who sarcastically posted NEBRASKA's results is around. Since he/she has the results of a race THAT HASNT TAKEN PLACE YET, I'm sure they can prognosticate the results for the delegates come August?
And these polls have been SOOOO right so far. Check out Gallup in March of 04. Kerry beat Dumbya by 15. Not to mention the exit polls of 11/04. Speaking of which the latest exit polls on super tuesday that the media in its Obama lovefest is using to extol his prospects, predicted a resounding Obama win in all states including CA and NJ!!!
I think that the media's love affair with Obama has to do with a desire to be seen as being progressive--i.e. supporting a black candidate. Why else would they elevate a nonentity like Obama to the status of a front runner? Obama is an empty suit and it is unfortunate that a lot of ignorant democrats are supporting him.
I am beginning to feel that African-Americans can't see beyond color. 8 out 10 voting for Obama is solely about race.
Why is it a lovefest now? Two months ago, Sen. Clinton was slaughtering both John Edwards and Obama, and no one was crying foul. Now Obama's rising, and it's suddenly as if he cast a voodoo spell upon the media: "Vote For Me....You Must Praise Me....Obama....YYYYYeeeessss...WWWWeeeee....CCCAAAAnnnn....."
Come on! So when the media writes favorably about a candidate somebody likes, they're just being journalists. But when they talk about the opposition, it's a "lovefest?" Gimmie a break. The media is just a part of the voting public. It's the public that causes the results of primaries and elections. I can't think of a bigger insult to the voting public (to Clinton,Obama and any other supporters) than to implicate that the media has bewitched them into voting the way they do. As a previous poster pointed out, the media predicted the 2004 election going to John Kerry (who isn't president, last I checked).
Here's the bottom line: Super Tuesday was supposed to be a roadblock for Obama, and it wasn't. He has a chance to win this race. He's a better campaigner than anyone (including the "lovefest" media) thought he might be.
That's it.