A number of bloggers and pundits have compared Barack Obama’s rise this year to that of Jimmy Carter in 1976 Hugh Hewitt did so today, Glenn did so yesterday, I mentioned it last month building on Rich Lowry’s National Review cover story in December.
The rise of an obscure, inexperienced politician pushing change, hope and a new brand of politics is not the only similarity this year’s presidential campaign has with that of 1976. Back then, one party saw its contest for the presidential nomination continue through its convention, with the popular vote nearly evenly divided between the two candidates.
With a similarly close vote this time and Hillary’s recent threat to carry this all this way to the Democratic convention in Denver, it’s no wonder at least a number of bloggers, pundits and journalists are comparing the Democratic race in 2008 to the Republican contest in 1976.
After losing the battle for the GOP nomination in 1976 to then-President Ford, Ronald Reagan, once he had won the Republican primary in New Hampshire four years later, advanced pretty effortlessly to GOP nomination, then defeated in a landslide Jimmy Carter, the man who had narrowly bested his erstwhile Republican rival. Should John McCain defeat Obama this fall, would Hillary be able to come back in 2012, arguing in part that she could have prevented four additional years of Republican rule had she been the Democratic nominee?
I wonder.
While she certainly does have a solid base of support in her party as he did in his, she is, in many ways, the opposite of Ronald Reagan. Where he excelled at speaking to large crowds, she is at her worst there, seeming wooden and forced. She has become better in one-on-one exchanges (see e.g., her recent O’Reilly interview), a format where he was relatively weak. Where he was a man of vision and ideas, she is a master of policy and details.
Where Reagan came late in life to politics, politics has consumed hers. It was a commitment to a certain set of ideas, a principled vision which spurred his activism. She seems more driven by the power of political office, adapting her views to the prevailing political mood. The only constant in her political ideology seems the opposite of the essence of his political philosophy. Whereas she sees increased federal involvement as the solution to almost every problem (save abortion), he was always skeptical of the power of the state.
This post notwithstanding, I am beginning to think Hillary may have a serious shot at the 2012 Democratic nomination should (as expected) Obama win her party’s nomination and (as possible but not certain) John McCain win in the fall. In that case, she, like Reagan in 1980, will in 2012 enter the presidential contest as her party’s frontrunner. But, will her political opportunism hinder her or help her?
She may well win her party’s nod in 2012 and Reagan won his in 1980, but as entirely different sort of politician than that great American.
My favorite political cartoonist also makes the Obama/Carter comparison. A comparison that really is spot on. Not only is Obama promoting the same policies, but his campaign is overflowing with advisers from the Carter administration. Its funny that Democrats are trying to paint McCain as the seond coming of Bush, considering all the substantive disagreements between the two — the Obama/Carter comparison is much more accurate, and Republicans should keep pointing it out.
And Hillary might lose now only to come back in ’12 like Reagan, and the comparison certainly ends there. But the Mayans (and I believe others) have predicted the world will end in 2012, so the “anti-” descriptor may end up being appropriate in more ways than one. 😉
Its not a surprisingly development if it does happen, Hillary has become a real power in the Democratic Party from this primary. She will have a list of supporters and several key demographic groups to lean on for support: women being the most important. She will be a much better campaigner than in 08 and have a much better plan in place in winning the nomination the second time around. If Obama does lose, she will be able to have that I told you I was the better nominee flag to carry. Unless there is another viable black canidate, Clintons should be able to win the lionshare of their vote.
Of course, this hinges on a lot of factors. Obama has to lose which seems really unlikely right now. Hillary will have had to convince dems that she really tried to help Obama and campaigned for him. And dozens of other what ifs, some else might suddenly pop up and run off with this again.
#2: “She will have a list of supporters and several key demographic groups to lean on for support: women being the most important. She will be a much better campaigner than in 08 and have a much better plan in place in winning the nomination the second time around.”
…AND, a scorch the earth sh*t list longer than the Vietnam War Memorial titled, “BACK-STABBING OBAMA SYCOPHANTS WHO WILL SOON WISH THEY HAD NEVER BEEN BORN.”
IMHO I don’t think Hillary is bothered about 2012 at this moment. I believe that BO has put her back so much up, that she might even win in a brokered convention. You know Obama is beginning to lose his charm pretty fast.
LOL, *that* was funny.
Sorry, girls, but I see the Denver convention more as Chicago 1968 than KC 1976.
And frankly, I don’t know why Screamin’ Howie Dean is so afraid of the fight going to the convention. This is a NOMINATING convention, for heaven’s sake! That is what they are supposed to do – nominate a candidate!
Trust the Dhimmicrats to screw up something so obvious.
And I’m laughing my guts out watching the furor over the FL/MI delegate seating. This same party urged “count every vote” in 2000; now eight years later, they are going the total opposite direction!
Somewhere, Reagan is smiling.
Regards,
Peter H.
#5: “And I’m laughing my guts out watching the furor over the FL/MI delegate seating.”
Me too. I saw the headlines on Foxnews.com about how the FL/MI delegate seating issue “could alter the Democratic Endgame” and the story had these lines:
“…Barack Obama softens his stance on the matter and says he’s ready to compromise.”
“And a higher delegate threshold would put the nomination out of Obama’s immediate reach.”
Ahhhh! I LOVE THE SMELL OF CHAOS IN THE MORNING!
Speaking of Hillary and her “gender card” attack, check out Peggy Noonan’s column here regarding how great women leaders never let their gender get in the way of their jobs.
Regards,
Peter H.
I can’t much stomach Noonan anymore. Like Sullivan, her writing left rationality behind some time ago. They both come across not as rational people with legitimate complaints, but jilted lovers with big axes to grind. Noonan to a lesser degree, but its still creepy.
Hillary has actually jumped on the Obama bandwagon now. You shouldn’t be comparing her to Reagan. How bout LBJ? Heh heh heh…
#9 – Are you sure you’re not confusing Peggy Noonan with Arianna Huffington? Because your description sounds more like Ari than Peg.
Regards,
Peter H.