Thoughts on the Democratic primary

This primary election is an unusual one in many ways. Supporters of Clinton and Obama – most of whom are Democratic voters, though some are independents or new to the process - have obviously been extremely passionate, and unfortunately some of have resorted to tearing down “the opposition” rather than speaking in a fair and constructive way about both candidates in the race, particularly given that (at least with regard to Democratic voters) each belong to the same party. But there are several issues that make this primary election different from ones in the past: first, it is the first campaign in history where the two final contenders include a woman and a person of color; second, it is first primary election where cable television and the internet, and blogs, have played such a prominent role in terms of the dissemination of information and framing the discussion; and third, it is the first primary election, at least that I could recall, where the generational split among voters was so pronounced. I believe all these factors have added to the fierceness of the discussion on the blogs. On the one hand, this could be viewed as a good thing: having such an outpouring of citizen participation invigorates the political process and holds candidates more accountable to the views of voters. On the other hand, thought, there is a danger that the immerging polarization could become further entrenched as the election comes to what seems likely to be a bitter end; if this is the case, it could well have negative repercussions for eventual Democratic nominee in the general election.

Although I have lived abroad, and consequently do have a somewhat “international” perspective on this election, I would have to concede that, due in part my relatively young age of 29, I cannot assess this election from a historical perspective, at least in any significant depth. Most of the campaigns I have witnessed actually date from the ‘92 election to present. I tend not to think, however, that the election so far has been “mild.” There have been scurrilous insinuations about drug issue, “fairy tale,” Manchurian duplicity, and the current controversy surrounding Obama’s relationship to his former pastor (which has been discussed and analyzed incessantly by media talking heads, at the expense of more pressing issues in the campaign and, of course, Obama’s standing in the polls). Clinton, in my view, has faced less negative attention in this election, either from the press or from the Obama campaign; her complaints about negative coverage always seemed calculated to force the media to scrutinize Obama further, which obviously they have now done full-court press. Do I think this is how elections should be conducted? No. I believe some press scrutiny is warranted, but excessive negativity could have the effect of turning off voters newly interested in the process and reaffirming the cynicism of those who have been disengaged. As someone who has participated only occasionally in political campaigns (the only candidates I have ever for prior to this election were Hillary Clinton in her first New York senate run and Gore), one of the things I was most attracted to in Obama was his desire to change the gridlock in Washington by giving voters a greater voice in how things are done. Over the past couple weeks or so, that hope has been severely tested.