Cleveland's Leaders Aren't Doing Obama Any Favors
October 13, 2008
In the battleground state of Ohio, Barack Obama can use all the help he can get. Obama has made great progress in other rest Rust-Belt states over the past few weeks. McCain has basically conceded Michigan; and thanks to Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton campaigning heavily in Pennsylvania, Obama has moved into a double digit lead in the Keystone State. Despite similar economic and cultural conditions in Ohio, Obama is struggling to generate momentum, and unfortunately, Cleveland's Democratic leaders are not doing him any favors.
Cleveland's Democrats have had issues for years - but the past six months have pushed skepticism to a new high. Beginning in June, the Plain Dealer ran a front page story detailing Cuyahoga County's political machine, headed by county auditor, Frank Russo. The Plain Dealer's report found that nearly a third of county employees had political connections to Russo.
A month later, the FBI and IRS raided county buildings in a corruption case targeted at Frank Russo and his political sidekick, Jimmy Dimora. The icing on the cake probably came when Democratic leaders, including Ohio's governor, expressed the opinion that this combo should leave public service for good.
Since the raid, other Democrats have been tied, either fairly or unfairly, to the corruption case. And the Democrats' problems aren't limited to corrupt county government officials. A few weeks ago I criticized Cleveland's city leaders for their inability to keep Eaton Corp. in the city. Eaton is one of many incidents that have caused me, and others, to lose faith in local leaders.
Tip O'Neill once famously declared, "all politics is local," suggesting that a nation is merely an aggregation of cities and towns, and what happens to people in those cities represents their opinion of the broader nation. At the end of the day, Barack Obama represents something radically different than Cleveland and Cuyahoga County's leaders. Obama stands for change, Cleveland's Democrats stand for more of the same. Obama stands for energy, hope, and new ideas; Cleveland's Democrats stand for failed policies and corruption. The only thing they really have in common is the affiliation under their names on the ballot: DEMOCRATIC.
Immediately after the federal raid, the Plain Dealer attempted to analyze the impact the events would have on the presidential election. The PD writes:
Voters in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, and the surrounding area have legitimate reason to ask why they should trust the Democratic Party to run the country when the same party is basically incapable of running the local government. In a state where Obama needs as much support as he can get, the local skepticism certainly is not doing him any good.
Cleveland's Democrats have had issues for years - but the past six months have pushed skepticism to a new high. Beginning in June, the Plain Dealer ran a front page story detailing Cuyahoga County's political machine, headed by county auditor, Frank Russo. The Plain Dealer's report found that nearly a third of county employees had political connections to Russo.
A month later, the FBI and IRS raided county buildings in a corruption case targeted at Frank Russo and his political sidekick, Jimmy Dimora. The icing on the cake probably came when Democratic leaders, including Ohio's governor, expressed the opinion that this combo should leave public service for good.
Since the raid, other Democrats have been tied, either fairly or unfairly, to the corruption case. And the Democrats' problems aren't limited to corrupt county government officials. A few weeks ago I criticized Cleveland's city leaders for their inability to keep Eaton Corp. in the city. Eaton is one of many incidents that have caused me, and others, to lose faith in local leaders.
Tip O'Neill once famously declared, "all politics is local," suggesting that a nation is merely an aggregation of cities and towns, and what happens to people in those cities represents their opinion of the broader nation. At the end of the day, Barack Obama represents something radically different than Cleveland and Cuyahoga County's leaders. Obama stands for change, Cleveland's Democrats stand for more of the same. Obama stands for energy, hope, and new ideas; Cleveland's Democrats stand for failed policies and corruption. The only thing they really have in common is the affiliation under their names on the ballot: DEMOCRATIC.
Immediately after the federal raid, the Plain Dealer attempted to analyze the impact the events would have on the presidential election. The PD writes:
And there is a bigger prize to be contested -- the presidency. But observers are confident Democratic hopeful Barack Obama will avoid the surefire onslaught of local references to Democrats and corruption.While the talking points may be mostly true, there are several important things to consider. First, Ohio is a state where literally every vote matters. A few thousand votes has the ability to swing the state one way or the other. Second, Obama may not lose support of Democrats who are disgusted with Cleveland's leaders, but he may fail to pick up moderates or disgruntled Republicans who have not been impressed with Bush era Republicans. Third, Obama loses any endorsement value that he is able to get in other places. Finally, even if more voters in the Cleveland area vote for Obama this year than John Kerry in 2004, it isn't proof that Cleveland's Democrats escaped doing damage, because we can never know how many votes Obama would have received otherwise.
"Nobody's going to vote for McCain based on what happened at the county," Commissioner Tim Hagan said on Tuesday. An Obama spokesman agreed. "The choice Ohio voters face this November is between Barack Obama, who will bring about real change in Washington and stand up for middle-class families, or John McCain, who will continue the same failed economic policies of the Bush administration," the spokesman said.
Voters in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, and the surrounding area have legitimate reason to ask why they should trust the Democratic Party to run the country when the same party is basically incapable of running the local government. In a state where Obama needs as much support as he can get, the local skepticism certainly is not doing him any good.
Will Governor Strickland pull up the Democratic ticket in OH? I get your point about politics being local, but you can hope that the OH voters are looking up and forward.
teisenbart, good question? Strickland was elected arguably because Ohioans were sick of the Republican extremists who had controlled the state for years before.
Obama's best hope for Ohio is probably new voters. Even if he is unable to swing many moderates or Republican skeptics to his side, he could pick up thousands of votes from people who have never paticipated before.
I am not suggesting that I think Obama will lose Ohio exclusively because of the leadership in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, but I do think in a toss-up state like Ohio, it sure would help if those problems didn't exist.