Edward Ware reflects on reasons why the Democrats are far from certain to win the White House, despite George Bush’s unpopularity and serious economic problems

FINALLY, the Democratic Party has selected a nominee for November’s presidential election. In a year when the political climate should be tailor-made for the Democrats to take control of the White House – a faltering economy, rising fuel costs and the continuation of an unpopular war in Iraq – recent opinion polls have Barack Obama and John McCain running almost level. The latest Rasmussen poll gives Obama a five-point lead. So, despite Hillary Clinton’s eventual withdrawal and promise to throw her full support behind the Illinois’ Senator’s campaign, has the increasingly bitter and acrimonious race for the Democratic nomination dealt a serious and even potentially fatal blow to the party’s chances of winning the presidency?

Of course, the answer is that we won’t know until November 5. If you believe Bill Clinton’s former pollster Dick Morris, the result will be a landslide either way: think George McGovern’s heavy defeat in 1972 or Bill Clinton’s triumph in 1996. However, if the recent special elections for the House of Representatives are anything to go by, the prevailing political winds look good for Obama.

The Democrats’ victories in the Mississippi 1st and Illinois 14th districts make the Crewe and Nantwich by-election look like a mere tremor on the political Richter scale. These districts voted overwhelmingly for George Bush in 2004 – by margins of 62 per cent to 37 per cent and 55 per cent to 43 per cent respectively.

Now the Democrats look poised for big gains in the House of Representatives. Charles Rangel, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means committee, is predicting gains of around 20 seats. The Senate is looking equally good for the Democrats. They seem almost certain to win in Virginia. That state is shaping up as a key battleground this year. Popular former Governor Mark Warner is the clear favourite to win – unless he turns out to be Obama’s choice as his running mate. A further six Republican incumbents facing re-election could also be ousted, according to the Cook Political Report, the renowned independent online newsletter that analyses elections and campaigns in the US.

So why, although voters seem to be abandoning the Republican Party in droves, did initial post-primary polls have Obama and McCain neck and neck? The Republican nominee is the man who says the economy is not his strong suit, has been as hawkish as Bush on Iraq and Iran and has promised to make the super rich and corporate boom known as the “Bush tax cuts” permanent.

Back in March and April this year, Obama’s historic victory in Iowa and Hillary Clinton’s poll-defying comeback in New Hampshire were fading memories. Super Tuesday had failed to deliver the knockout blow for which both campaigns had been desperately hoping. The prospect of a protracted 50-state contest and possible brokered convention went from being a West Wing plotline and politicos’ wet dream to a genuine possibility

That same period brought unwelcome revelations about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright – arguably still the single issue that poses the greatest threat to the Obama campaign. We expect to see the now infamous clip of Wright crying: “God damn America” from the pulpit replayed ad nauseam.

As a result, the race issue was now at centre stage. Earlier, Bill Clinton had made a blatant attempt to play the race card in the South Carolina campaign when he dismissed Obama’s victory in the state with a deeply unsubtle reference to Jesse Jackson’s victories there in 1984 and 1988.

The Wright issue had been waiting to explode ever since Obama had withdrawn the invitation to his now former pastor to deliver the invocation when he announced his bid for the presidency in a speech in Springfield, Illinois, all the way back in February 2007. Journalists did not miss this incident at the time, although they certainly missed the significance of it.

Then came “Bittergate”. Just days before the Pennsylvania primary, at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Obama clumsily stated that small town rural voters were bitter because of their worsening economic situation and, as a consequence, clung to guns and religion. This provided the Clinton campaign with further ammunition for its claim that Obama is an elitist and out of touch with middle America. Meanwhile, Clinton stressed the credentials with which she had finally managed to define her candidacy: an economic populist and champion of blue-collar working men and women of all ages. This coalition almost proved as formidable as that of Obama’s, comprising younger, college-educated and black voters.

Obama attempted to diffuse the Wright controversy with what many considered to be a high watermark in the campaign. But his thoughtful and nuanced meditation on the state of race relations in America, delivered at the Constitution Centre in Philadelphia, only served to diffuse the matter temporarily.

Reverend Wright returned to haunt the Obama campaign with a controversial performance at the National Press Club. He repeated claims that America was to blame for the September 11, attacks, praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who is regarded by many as an anti-Semite, and reiterated his belief that the US government created Aids to infect black people. This prompted Obama to do what some of his advisors had been suggesting from beginning: in political parlance, to “throw him under a bus”. Obama said: “I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday.” Recently Obama left the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in an attempt to put serious distance between himself and Wright.

The problem for both Obama and Clinton during the primary process was that, on major policy positions, they were not very far apart. Both pledged to bring an end to the war in Iraq and both promised to establish a form of universal healthcare coverage.

As it became clear that the race was Obama’s to lose, Clinton’s only hope was to convince the party’s super-delegates that

he was a flawed candidate who was incapable of beating McCain. She pointed to her victories in the key general election states of Ohio and Pennsylvania as evidence that she was carrying the day with the blue-collar workers so essential to victory.

However, Clinton’s strategy failed as the contest meandered to a close with the Montana and South Dakota primaries. A host of super-delegates endorsed Obama and he crossed the magic threshold needed to secure the nomination. But at what cost?

The question of how much the primary process may have damaged Obama is difficult to assess. Any number of things may happen between now and November which may change the course of the election. The Republican attack machine has yet to get going. But the man now installed as the Democrat’s nominee is a different person from the one we saw in Iowa when he appeared to embody everything America wants to believe about itself and commentators rushed to declare that race no longer mattered. Obama has clearly been damaged by the Wright affair and now faces a struggle to win over groups traditionally sympathetic to the Democratic Party. If the problem with blue-collar and lower-income white voters persists, we may find ourselves looking back at this primary season, the polarisation of the Democratic Party and Clinton’s late show of strength as the primary reasons behind a McCain victory.

Edward Ware is a senior political researcher at Foresightnews USA