Having glanced at the horizon of the GOP race, I have some follow-up thoughts about the Dems. Actually, they are closer to musings. Like Excitable Andy, I’m “just airing” them, albeit without the conspiracy theories.
At the moment — as you likely noticed – Obama fever is consuming swaths of the media and the blogosphere. To be sure, Ezra Klein’s rapture will be marked as a classic in the genre, but it is by no means limited to him. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter thinks Barack’s Obama-Fu is unstoppable, save by Obama himself. On the other side of the aisle, at Commentary’s blog, Pete Wehner also declares Obama the favorite to be the next President of the United States. And while I am linkless for the FNC coverage, Bill Kristol said much the same after the Iowa caucus results were announced, while on Thursday, Juan Williams hyperventilated that Obama seemed to have some sort of “aura” around him during his victory speech.
Nationally, the current results at InTrade suggest that Obama’s Iowa win turned the race from a Clinton cakewalk to a 50/45 proposition. The current state-by-state polling suggests that Obama is within striking distance in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but that Clinton has leads of over 15 points in every other contest leading to Super-Duper Tuesday.
The size and nature of Obama’s win in Iowa gives him the potential to reach critical mass as NotClinton. He is well-funded and organized — including in 17 of the Super-Duper Tuesday states, iirc. His personal strengths as a candidate — and Clinton’s personal weaknesses — could allow Obama to ride a wave of piecemeal momentum to the nomination, based on the compressed campaign schedule. But that scenario would be unprecedented.
Clinton has $120 million to spend, organization, discipline, a sizable cushion in the polls, and well-deserved reputation for ruthlessness. She will likely bring out the mud “heighten the contrast” between them, leaving Obama with the choice of engaging (and risk losing his post-partisan appeal) or remaining above the fray (and risk erosion of support in a rain of corrosive attacks).ÂÂ
My pure guess is that Obama will pick the latter (and will have to convey that to his throngs of supporters). Staying postive helped him in Iowa. This is misleading as Iowa rejects attack politics more than most other states, but it may reinforce Obama’s inclination. More important, staying positive may show Obama-Fu to be a refinement of one of the classic Clintonoid tactics. Obama can pull the “negative attacks never fed a starving child” line right out of the (Bill) Clinton playbook and beat Hillary over the head with it while keeping his Alfred E. Newman-esque demeanor firmly in place. That would be some Clinton karma, wouldn’t it?
If I was the sort to do exit questions, mine would be whether — if Clinton wins the nomination (still the most likely scenario) — she is already forced to pick Obama for Veep. If she prevails by taking the low road, she may not be able to afford alienating the sizeable blocs of support she will turn off along the way — blacks, independents, Gen X and Y voters, etc.
Obama has already demonstrated a propensity for exposing a lack of deep knowledge about issues. He will…
(Um, is it okay to say “fade” about an African-American? I’m talking about his political future not his, you know…)
Even if Obama does get the Donk nomination, his vapidity will be rapidly manifested in the TV debates that will surely follow with his Republican counterpart:
“Senator Obama, it’s nice to talk about change, bringing people together, regaining moral standing, and disengaging from Iraq. But what happens if, say, Congress…or Al Qaeda…or Iran decide they’re not going to cooperate with your grand vision? What’s your Plan B? Do you even have a Plan B?”
FIREDUPfiredupREADYTOGOreadyto is already macarena-stale and kind of culty and I can see it devolving into like this one time I was in a Super K-Mart early one day during grand opening and the employees were in a circle and peppy manager guy said “Turlene? You wanna kick us off?” and Turlene sighed and said “Ok. Gimme a K.” Cheerleading without substance is draining.
“Obama has already demonstrated a propensity for exposing a lack of deep knowledge about issues.”
You mean like that hook of his about “not giving tax breaks to companies that are moving jobs overseas”?
“Senator Obama, it’s nice to talk about change, bringing people together, regaining moral standing, and disengaging from Iraq. But what happens if, say, Congress…or Al Qaeda…or Iran decide they’re not going to cooperate with your grand vision? What’s your Plan B? Do you even have a Plan B?â€Â
It should be pointed out that Obama was much more of a realist about Iraq in 2002 than the Plan A group charged up for the invasion. As for moral standing, I’d like to hear myself what the Republican Plan B is on that issue. Huckabee has a Plan B on morality? Maybe Romney has a position to which he can flop, but other than that, this little debate fantasy is flailing at nothing at all.
“Clinton has $120 million to spend, organization, discipline, a sizable cushion in the polls, and well-deserved reputation for ruthlessness. ”
Karl, all due respect here, but she lacks the one quality necessary in a real leader: resilience.
She hasn’t faced “tough times”. She’s dealt with the duck butter of a misspent, corrupt, and opportunistic partnership, yes, but the trials and tribulations are nothing more than the fallout one would expect from a grifter who started out a campus communist, bloomed in corrupt small state politics, and finally matured fully as a hack political grifter devoid of ideology beyond the addictive pursuit of power.
She doesn’t have an end-state to aim for. She is the one who lives the endless campaign by making the people in her way into enemies, never merely opponents. She’s the vase on the pottery barn bargain table. Strip away the media water – carrying and BDS, and we’ve got a sixty- something year old woman who has never proven a knack for anything but getting good press.
A creature such as herself could never operate at her level of responsibility in any forum BUT what has become of the U.S. political circus.
Silly hen. She thinks that she is chasing power. It’s never that – not in a republic. It always comes down to responsibility… which is why when votes are actually cast and counted, the media and punditry so often dine on crow.
Stick a fork in her if she fails to win New Hamshire. I think her Moment will make Dean look positively Churchillian.
…HamPshire …
PIMF.
a realist? really? i’m not seeing a plan in his 2002 speech except for, “more of the same!” Saddam will let inspectors in if we ask really, really, nicely. like he did in….. um, help me out here.
sorry, sorry. what I should say is you’re just proving Karl’s point about there not being much substance there. He demonstrates time and again, his ignorance of the military and what they are doing overseas.
Realism, yes. You can see it here 3 months before the invasion. This is a much more realistic scenario than that painted by someone like Wolfowitz, who stated around this same time that Iraq would be perfectly situated to pay for its’ own reconstruction.
What are you on about? Teh NPR said that Iraq isn’t an issue in 2008. Healthcare and pocketbook issues they said. You need to get with the program.