The Hamilton College Democrats sponsored a speech by David Corn, former editor of The Nation magazine and new bureau chief of Mother Jones, on Oct. 22. Corn discussed the prospects of Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2008 presidential election, and suggested that a Democratic win was possible but still uncertain.
Corn, the author of New York Times bestseller The Lies of George W. Bush, freely ridiculed members of the Republican Party in his talk, beginning with the president. Commenting on the perception that 2008 would be a "change election," which favors the Democratic Party since Republican contenders must prove themselves to be different from the president, Corn said it was "marvelous" because the current political climate was "George Bush's own doing." Corn suggested that if the president had limited himself to a focus on the popular war in Afghanistan, he would be "riding pretty high right now" in public support, since the economy is currently doing relatively well by traditional measures and America has not suffered another terrorist attack since 9/11. However, because Bush chose to follow the advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and other "neocons" and attacked Iraq, Corn said his presidency has suffered in public support that gives his party a disadvantage in the 2008 elections.
The Democratic candidates who wish to replace Bush are, in Corn's eyes, in a "three-person race" with lopsided support for New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Clinton has led polls in the Democratic field "from the beginning" and has increased her advantage over second-place candidate Senator Barack Obama in recent weeks, indicating her advantage is due to more than just "name recognition." Corn suggested much of Clinton's strength in the polls comes from the fact that "Democrats still love Bill Clinton," despite his presidency being "frustrating" to progressives like Corn because of his conservative positions on crime, welfare and free trade. Bill Clinton, however, recaptured some support once partisan "battle lines" were drawn between the Clintons and congressional Republicans in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, since Democrats were forced to recognize their unity with the president against common foes; furthermore, Clinton looks good in retrospect because "Dracula would have been good compared to what came after Bill Clinton," Corn said.
Corn also commented on what Hillary Clinton's rivals, Senator Obama and former Senator John Edwards, need to do to win support. Corn praised Obama's accomplishments as a community organizer and his role in passing health care and racial profiling bills in the Illinois state legislation, and suggested Obama's problems lay in his lack of prominence on the national stage, meaning voters are often suspicious of his attempts to broadcast his successes; it is "hard to see [Obama's accomplishments] when he's out there trying to tell people he's a quality person." Corn thought Edwards, too, lacked "a connection with voters" when promoting himself as a candidate.
The solution, said Corn, lies in attack advertising: "I'm a big fan of negative ads in politics as long as they are truthful... that's how you win campaigns, it's by showing you are a better person" than the opponent. Corn sees such advertisements as the only option to make up the disadvantages Obama and Edwards face against an "establishment candidate" like Clinton; there are "very few candidates... who are not the front-runner who win without going for broke" in attacking the leader. While Obama's campaign decided to forgo attack advertising early in the election cycle, Corn argued that Obama cannot achieve victory without it, though he may be holding off in the hope of a seat on the vice-presidential ticket or a race in 2012 if Clinton loses in 2008.
Thus, Corn saw Clinton as the likely Democratic nominee, although she does not have a "slam-dunk" in part because of high negative sentiments about her presidency. He commented that some pollsters see her maximum support as 52 percent of the public, barely enough to win, and she is the candidate with the second highest number of people saying they would not vote for her under any circumstance (after John McCain). Clinton could also suffer if she was exposed to the extensive Republican opposition research gathered over her 37-year political career (although she also has nine months in the general election to refute those negatives), or if Bill Clinton makes personal missteps resulting in another "Clinton soap opera." Corn also suggested that Hillary Clinton may be hurt by her gender, because a small number of moderate voters who are unsure about a woman as the commander in chief could easily swing an election as close as those in 2000 or 2004. However, Corn thought Clinton did have the capacity to improve her candidacy over the course of the race, much as Richard Nixon reinvented himself after a 1960 presidential defeat to win in 1968.
On the Republican side of the election, Corn was much more pleased: "it's fantastic... [that] every one of the Republican candidates have a trap door waiting to open" and demolish their candidacy. Corn then enumerated the points of the Republican front-runners that would make them unacceptable to socially conservative Republican primary voters and thus hurt their chances of winning: former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is known as "the guy who wears dresses" in photos and has done so "five or six times." Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney formerly led a liberal state and said "I support gay rights more than [liberal Democrat] Teddy Kennedy."
Senator John McCain angered social conservatives in 2000 when he rejected social conservative leaders Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and former Senator Fred Thompson has been called "not a good enough Christian" by evangelical Christian leader James Dobson. In addition to these intraparty difficulties, Corn poked at Giuliani's national security credentials, stating that his actions on 9/11 were merely a case where Giuliani "did his job when the president didn't," Romney's "almost too polished" appearance, McCain looking "worn out," and Fred Thompson's disbelief in global warming. Overall, Corn suggested that many Republicans are not interested in the 2008 election, as measured by donation levels; for the first time in years Democrats are surpassing Republicans in fundraising. To Corn, the Republican candidates' twin goals of "win the war in Iraq" and "cut taxes" have "become so tired and shopworn that even rich Republicans who could benefit" from these policies aren't showing strong support.
Corn concluded by discussing the dynamics of the 2008 presidential contest. He pointed out that for many voters, fatigue from an unusually long campaign season is already setting in—and after the primaries, "we'll go from February 5 to the first week of November with the same two people" repeating themselves to convey their messages. In this environment, Corn sees "swift-boat" style negative campaign ads gaining prominence as left and right wing groups build such advertisements to discredit both candidates, and the media reports on them for want of new material to cover. The result, Corn said, would be "completely trivial distractions for nine months."
However, while Corn predicts a static media environment, he noted a few important "wildcards" that could sway the election. The first one is the situation in Iraq, where Corn does not predict improvement given the lack of commitment to political reconciliation from major Iraqi leaders and President Bush's tactics to delay the situation until he leaves office. However, because the current presidential contest lacks debate about the war (the Democrats argue about who will "get out quickest" and the Republicans who can win most quickly), the American public has yet to see the two parties' views contrasted and pick sides between them, which will ignite new debate. Also, a United States attack on Iran, which the public currently opposes but has support in the Bush Administration, could make things better or worse for the Republicans. If the U.S. successfully destroyed Iranian nuclear facilities without causing a wider conflict in the Middle East the Republicans would benefit substantially, while if Iraq and the region explode in response to this invasion Republicans are likely to be hurt. Another issue that has important implications would be another terrorist attack on the United States, which would give the Republican platform of national security a stronger footing.
Finally, Corn posed the question "Can the Democrats win?" His response: "Sure—it's possible," since Clinton or Obama could win all the states John Kerry won in 2004 and expand to a contested state like Ohio (where Republicans are hurt by corruption). But Clinton faces some serious obstacles from her history, while Obama will not win the nomination without negative advertising. Corn concluded that while the election is important, he is not an optimist, and the election of 2008 could easily be decided by voters' simplified impressions of candidates.
-- by Kye Lippold '10
Corn, the author of New York Times bestseller The Lies of George W. Bush, freely ridiculed members of the Republican Party in his talk, beginning with the president. Commenting on the perception that 2008 would be a "change election," which favors the Democratic Party since Republican contenders must prove themselves to be different from the president, Corn said it was "marvelous" because the current political climate was "George Bush's own doing." Corn suggested that if the president had limited himself to a focus on the popular war in Afghanistan, he would be "riding pretty high right now" in public support, since the economy is currently doing relatively well by traditional measures and America has not suffered another terrorist attack since 9/11. However, because Bush chose to follow the advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and other "neocons" and attacked Iraq, Corn said his presidency has suffered in public support that gives his party a disadvantage in the 2008 elections.
The Democratic candidates who wish to replace Bush are, in Corn's eyes, in a "three-person race" with lopsided support for New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Clinton has led polls in the Democratic field "from the beginning" and has increased her advantage over second-place candidate Senator Barack Obama in recent weeks, indicating her advantage is due to more than just "name recognition." Corn suggested much of Clinton's strength in the polls comes from the fact that "Democrats still love Bill Clinton," despite his presidency being "frustrating" to progressives like Corn because of his conservative positions on crime, welfare and free trade. Bill Clinton, however, recaptured some support once partisan "battle lines" were drawn between the Clintons and congressional Republicans in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, since Democrats were forced to recognize their unity with the president against common foes; furthermore, Clinton looks good in retrospect because "Dracula would have been good compared to what came after Bill Clinton," Corn said.
Corn also commented on what Hillary Clinton's rivals, Senator Obama and former Senator John Edwards, need to do to win support. Corn praised Obama's accomplishments as a community organizer and his role in passing health care and racial profiling bills in the Illinois state legislation, and suggested Obama's problems lay in his lack of prominence on the national stage, meaning voters are often suspicious of his attempts to broadcast his successes; it is "hard to see [Obama's accomplishments] when he's out there trying to tell people he's a quality person." Corn thought Edwards, too, lacked "a connection with voters" when promoting himself as a candidate.
The solution, said Corn, lies in attack advertising: "I'm a big fan of negative ads in politics as long as they are truthful... that's how you win campaigns, it's by showing you are a better person" than the opponent. Corn sees such advertisements as the only option to make up the disadvantages Obama and Edwards face against an "establishment candidate" like Clinton; there are "very few candidates... who are not the front-runner who win without going for broke" in attacking the leader. While Obama's campaign decided to forgo attack advertising early in the election cycle, Corn argued that Obama cannot achieve victory without it, though he may be holding off in the hope of a seat on the vice-presidential ticket or a race in 2012 if Clinton loses in 2008.
Thus, Corn saw Clinton as the likely Democratic nominee, although she does not have a "slam-dunk" in part because of high negative sentiments about her presidency. He commented that some pollsters see her maximum support as 52 percent of the public, barely enough to win, and she is the candidate with the second highest number of people saying they would not vote for her under any circumstance (after John McCain). Clinton could also suffer if she was exposed to the extensive Republican opposition research gathered over her 37-year political career (although she also has nine months in the general election to refute those negatives), or if Bill Clinton makes personal missteps resulting in another "Clinton soap opera." Corn also suggested that Hillary Clinton may be hurt by her gender, because a small number of moderate voters who are unsure about a woman as the commander in chief could easily swing an election as close as those in 2000 or 2004. However, Corn thought Clinton did have the capacity to improve her candidacy over the course of the race, much as Richard Nixon reinvented himself after a 1960 presidential defeat to win in 1968.
On the Republican side of the election, Corn was much more pleased: "it's fantastic... [that] every one of the Republican candidates have a trap door waiting to open" and demolish their candidacy. Corn then enumerated the points of the Republican front-runners that would make them unacceptable to socially conservative Republican primary voters and thus hurt their chances of winning: former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is known as "the guy who wears dresses" in photos and has done so "five or six times." Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney formerly led a liberal state and said "I support gay rights more than [liberal Democrat] Teddy Kennedy."
Senator John McCain angered social conservatives in 2000 when he rejected social conservative leaders Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and former Senator Fred Thompson has been called "not a good enough Christian" by evangelical Christian leader James Dobson. In addition to these intraparty difficulties, Corn poked at Giuliani's national security credentials, stating that his actions on 9/11 were merely a case where Giuliani "did his job when the president didn't," Romney's "almost too polished" appearance, McCain looking "worn out," and Fred Thompson's disbelief in global warming. Overall, Corn suggested that many Republicans are not interested in the 2008 election, as measured by donation levels; for the first time in years Democrats are surpassing Republicans in fundraising. To Corn, the Republican candidates' twin goals of "win the war in Iraq" and "cut taxes" have "become so tired and shopworn that even rich Republicans who could benefit" from these policies aren't showing strong support.
Corn concluded by discussing the dynamics of the 2008 presidential contest. He pointed out that for many voters, fatigue from an unusually long campaign season is already setting in—and after the primaries, "we'll go from February 5 to the first week of November with the same two people" repeating themselves to convey their messages. In this environment, Corn sees "swift-boat" style negative campaign ads gaining prominence as left and right wing groups build such advertisements to discredit both candidates, and the media reports on them for want of new material to cover. The result, Corn said, would be "completely trivial distractions for nine months."
However, while Corn predicts a static media environment, he noted a few important "wildcards" that could sway the election. The first one is the situation in Iraq, where Corn does not predict improvement given the lack of commitment to political reconciliation from major Iraqi leaders and President Bush's tactics to delay the situation until he leaves office. However, because the current presidential contest lacks debate about the war (the Democrats argue about who will "get out quickest" and the Republicans who can win most quickly), the American public has yet to see the two parties' views contrasted and pick sides between them, which will ignite new debate. Also, a United States attack on Iran, which the public currently opposes but has support in the Bush Administration, could make things better or worse for the Republicans. If the U.S. successfully destroyed Iranian nuclear facilities without causing a wider conflict in the Middle East the Republicans would benefit substantially, while if Iraq and the region explode in response to this invasion Republicans are likely to be hurt. Another issue that has important implications would be another terrorist attack on the United States, which would give the Republican platform of national security a stronger footing.
Finally, Corn posed the question "Can the Democrats win?" His response: "Sure—it's possible," since Clinton or Obama could win all the states John Kerry won in 2004 and expand to a contested state like Ohio (where Republicans are hurt by corruption). But Clinton faces some serious obstacles from her history, while Obama will not win the nomination without negative advertising. Corn concluded that while the election is important, he is not an optimist, and the election of 2008 could easily be decided by voters' simplified impressions of candidates.
-- by Kye Lippold '10
