The Candidates
I can think of no better summation of the state of the Democratic race:
Hillary has one final hope. We’ve seen the beginnings of an Obama backlash emerging, not just from the right but from the center-left as well. Some are increasingly concerned by the cult of personality aura surrounding his campaign, while others have begun to rethink whether there is any substance behind Obama’s powerful rhetoric, and whether he can win in a general election.
If this budding backlash comes into full bloom over the next twelve days - perhaps aided by a stumble by the candidate himself - Clinton still has a chance. Otherwise, Democrats appear ready to issue Hillary her gold watch on March 4th and send her back to the Senate where she, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy can swap stories about the one that got away.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 am
I agree. Certainly we’re starting to see some of the pundits question the messiah movement (though some seems to be of the “I thought you were cool until everyone else thought you were cool, so now you’re not cool” type). Whether such pundits represent many votes is another question.
It seemed like Hillary was preparing for a graceful exit in the debate.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
Can we get a thread about this campaign finance issue. Its interesting and important.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141.html?hpid=topnews
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 am
I think Billary will find a way to STEAL the nomination.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 am
I’ve always thought Barack Obama was too liberal to win a general election. I still think that, but there is a part of me that is concerned. Someone was telling me recently that when Reagan ran in 1980 he ran a campaign similar to Obama’s, talking about change etc. The only difference was it was conservative change and not liberal change. However, there is a danger that Obama could be a liberal Reagan. The conservatives knew Reagan was one of them, so they voted for him, and he was able to get moderates by talking about change. I’m concerned that the liberals basically know Obama is one of them, and he may be able to get enough moderate voters by talking about change. Apolitical people don’t really need specific details on issues because they probably don’t understand it anyway. They just want something that sounds good, and Obama offers that.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
“It seemed like Hillary was preparing for a graceful exit in the debate.”
I’ll believe that when I see it. I don’t believe she’s capable of a graceful exit, and will have to be drug off the stage kicking and screaming (figuratively speaking).
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
The NYT hit job on McCain helps Obama by taking the attention off of him for a crucial few days. Obama benefits when people see a little bit of him. Too close of a look and many will ask disappointed:
“Where’s the Beef?”
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 am
[...] Wisdom has more on The Clinton disorganization, Race42008 and Real Clear Politics also have posts up discussing Hillary’s [...]
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Clarence,
There are probably a couple of important differences. Reagan was running against an incumbent, and those elections always tend to be a two-step process: First, the public decides whether they like the incumbent enough to keep him. If not, there’s nothing the challenger can do. Second, the public decides whether they trust the challenger. Carter accomplished Step I himself, while Reagan accomplished Step II in the final debate with his famous “there you go again” line. Were Bush running again (and not in the ephemeral sense that Dems will try to keep him on the ballot), this would be a much greater cause for concern.
Second, Reagan was running in a country where there was a pre-existing conservative majority (or close to it) that he was able to weld into a governing partisan coalition. Indeed, that majority had existed for quite some time — at least since the 1938 election — but its was split between the parties. Reagan’s accomplishment was solidifying Nixon’s welding of that majority. Some pieces of that majority are gone with the irrelevance of anticommunism, but its largely in place, and while under strain, isn’t likely to go running to a Senator who is at Bernie Sanders’ Left. Liberals argue that there is a similar emerging majority for Obama to grasp. They may be right, but realistically public opinion numbers haven’t changed much from the late 80s/early 90s on conservative issues (setting aside the question of gay rights). They are down from their conservative peaks in the mid-90s, so the question is whether the trend continues or not.
Richard M,
I think she’ll drop out if she loses TX and/or OH. I think the hemming and hawing about going after FL/MI, going after pledged delegates etc., is posturing to keep the donors around. Now if she wins TX/OH I think all bets are off.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Democrats would be just stupid to nominate Clinton. She would drag down the whole party in November.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I hope Clinton does win Texas and Ohio, taking this to a DEM brokered convention is just fine with me (superdelegates, backroom deals etc). The worst possible outcome is Hillary dropping out and Obama giving her the VP slot. Huckabee staying in and forcing the republicans to take this nomination to a brokered convention. Then watch the worst lop-sided election known to man take place. I would have to cancel cable TV and take medication for at least 4 years.