Over at Talking Points Memo, Theda Skocpol, a distinguished political scientist, has posed three pointed questions to the Democrats:

After each primary, the press and pundits go into a frenzy of over-analysis, pronouncing death for the candidate who lost the last primary. To be expected, I guess, in a 24/7 media system where writers have to generate new questions and columns every day. Now that Obama has been chewed over (following a primary in which his opponent netted only about a dozen delegates), it is time for the next round of tough questions -- which should go to Hillary Clinton's overtime campaign:: --

Senator Clinton, a new Harvard Institute of Politics poll shows that -- by a huge 70% to 30% margin -- young Democrats favor Senator Obama for the party's nomination. You consistently lose this group, which Obama has energized and drawn to the polls. Why should party leaders and superdelegates give up the party's future to throw the nomination to you? --

The Democratic Party can win general elections only by inspiring cross-racial coalitions and drawing huge majorities of African Americans to the polls. Your campaign started out with strong majority support among African Americans, but you have steadily alienated and angered these voters. Can you prove your appeal to black voters, starting in the big, swing state of North Carolina? [Note to Press: Having Bill Clinton go around to rural areas and arouse the white Bubba vote doesn't cut it. That doesn't expand Hillary's appeal.] --

As demonstrated in PA, Senator Clinton, you do best in "closed" Democratic primaries where Independents cannot easily vote. But Republicans have nominated a 2008 candidate with strong appeal to Independents. Why should party Superdelegates prefer you to Obama, who consistently shows broader appeal to Independents? -- For months, polls have shown that Senator Obama will put the Republicans on the defensive in many more states this coming November. That will help elect more Democrats to Congress, and swing more states to the Democratic presidential column. Why should Democrats give that up -- especially knowing that Bill Clinton in the 1990s presided over historic losses for Democrats in Congress and in many states?

Good questions.

Sheila Suess Kennedy's blog | login or register to post comments