Bill Kristol is getting blog buzz for his latest column on Hillary Clinton, primarily this:
She is, of course, still behind in the race, and Obama will most likely be the nominee. His team has run the better campaign. In particular, it realized how important the caucus states could be: Obama’s delegate lead depends on his caucus victories.
But Hillary may well be the better candidate. After all, for all the talk of Obama’s extraordinary ability to draw voters to the polls, Clinton has defeated him in the big states, including California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Obama won his home state of Illinois, but she won Florida, where both were on the ballot but didn’t campaign.
Furthermore, if you add up the votes in all the primaries and caucuses  excluding Michigan (where only Hillary was on the ballot), and imputing the likely actual totals in the four caucus states, where only percentages were reported  Clinton now trails in overall votes by only about 300,000, or about 1 percent of the total. By the end of the nominating contest, she may well be ahead on this benchmark  one not entirely to be scorned in a democracy.
Wonkette and AMERICAblog view this only in terms of Kristol’s presumably nefarious motives, while HotAir takes a (deserved) victory lap for Allahpundit regarding Clinton’s tactical wisdom in seeking an unmoderated debate.
But regular pw readers know that from the outset of this cycle, I have criticized the establishment media’s focus on horse race polls, while downplaying the importance of the “ground game†of presidential politics. About ten weeks ago, it was becoming clear that Obama was running a camapign of winning caucuses in normally Republican states to overcome the “inevitableâ€Â establishment candidacy of Hillary Clinton, much as McGovern did to Muskie in 1972. Thus, it did not come as a shock when Obama’s campaign began to look more and more McGovernite in which voters it wins and loses.
Whatever Kristol’s motive may be, he is at least on the way to grasping the degree to which organization has shaped — and continues to shape — the outcome of the current Democratic campaign.
no, she won’t be the better candidate.
she’s old too.
;)
You forgot the little nose.
:-)
brad pitt would take it in a walk
some care only about age and looks
lulz
Also that’s really cool that Kristol quoted AP I think. Me I’m not jaded to where that’s not a big deal cause it’s pretty neat I think. But I think that’s really weird how Wonkette pretends not to notice that Kristol was mostly talking about Baracky’s media harem. Buncha fat whores really if I can borrow Lisa’s word there.
rawr!
Obama is related to Brad Pitt, Karl.
the genes will tell.
;)
WTF?
It’s 6:30 and I’m still at the fucking office. Why the hell did I take this position? This is why I have no goddamned life; hell, I don’t even have time to email the Librarian.
Pardon me while I’m bitter…
like i picked pitt by chance?
The pot is calling the kettle a Black Liberation Theologist. Oy, Karl.
Some people have a problem distinguishing between process and substance, I suppose.
hahaha
well.
they are both beautiful mans.
i wonder when mccains medical reports are coming out……
If you’re into the metrosexual look, nish.
Karl writes:
“Thus, it did not come as a shock when Obama’s campaign began to look more and more McGovernite in which voters it wins and loses.”
From your lips to God’s ears. Much as I don’t like McCain, I’m hoping November 2008 will look a lot like November 1972.
<shudder> If it turns out that way, I can only hope 2009 and 2010 don’t end up looking like 1973 and 1974.
If you click the final link in the post, you will find me arguing that 2008 is likely not 1972.
Barack Obama for President.
Hillary is desperate, a liar (Bosnia) and she feels entitled.
BARACK OBAMA FOR CHANGE!
BARACK OBAMA A UNIFER!
BARACK OBAMA IS FOR ALL AMERICANS!
If we start getting comments from lowercase “bill” and lowercase “cindy,” I’m gonna scream.