Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Obama Collapse?

I give this the dramatic title, not because Robert Novak’s perfectly prosaic column deserves such drama (although what it says is true), but because there is an implication underneath the surface that says that Obama (and his advisors) are capable of total collapse near the end of the primary process which he still leads and almost cannot lose (the delegate count) until after the primary process. Their childish and imprudent behavior (and Novak doesn’t site all of them) was revealed before Ohio-Texas. The adults (notice I didn’t say the elder statesmen) left in the Democratic Party are now losing sleep. Indeed, they may have killed sleep because the ghost of McGovern’s huge loss in ’72 now begins to loom in the backs of their minds if Obama is the nominee. Hillary (this shouldn’t surprise) will play this ghost like a stradivarius. And this looming catastrophe will be the basis of all her attack ads from now on. It will resonate ten-fold more than it did the three days before the Texas and Ohio vote when it just started sinking in. This is also her only chance and basis for persuading the superdelegates to come out in her favor before the convention. Because she will take Pennsylvania by circa 16-20 points, her argument will have standing and even the blind will see it.

Discussions - 21 Comments

"Hillary (this shouldn’t surprise) will play this ghost like a stradivarius."

I think this may be a mixed metaphor, but it does create such a wonderful cartoony image.

Well, the Obama campaign does promote a certain childlike -- OK, childish -- enthusiasm. Peter here adopts the tone of the Clinton campaign's reaction to it, especially their contempt at the notion that she should give up. Of course she should not give up. Not yet. HE is the danger, they say, and Novak joins in. I don't get Peter's analogy -- that Obama is the McGovern-in-1972. If this is 1972, then EITHER Obama OR Clinton will play McGovern to McCain's Nixon. And that may be the case, but in my opinion Obama is the stronger prospect against McCain.

I used to agree with Steve's last point--that Obama was the stronger opponent. No more. Obama's has exposed his soft under-belly and he's been wounded there. He's much easier to beat now than he was a few weeks ago. Now I think he's slightly easier to beat than Hillary. But neither of them will be as easy to be as McGovern was. They are match-ups of the same kind but not of the same degree. Still, I'm liking the Obama/McCain match up better every day. On the other hand, I am more afraid of an Obama presidency than I am of (another!) Clinton presidency. Both would do damage. He would do more. He might only get 4 years to do it in, but his 4 years would be worse than Clinton's 8. (As Carter's were in comparison to B. Clinton's.) In general, I don't think much good comes from Republicans trying to strategize over which Democrat is better to fight. We have to be ready to fight them all.

Obama can be liked to McGovern, Clinton cannot. And I don't buy the notion that Obama has a better shot at beating McCain. What little substance he has is a long way to the left of the American center.

This post is wishful thinking. To many will take Obama as he is, faults and all, over "evil" Hillary and "liberal" McCain anytime, anywhere, any year. As pundits, your a little too close - making something from nothing...

Still, I'm liking the Obama/McCain match up better every day. On the other hand, I am more afraid of an Obama presidency than I am of (another!) Clinton presidency. Both would do damage. He would do more.

Well said.

Peter Schramm prediction in 2006:


"So I think the GOP will hold the Senate (holding on to MO, TN, MT, OH and taking MD). And the GOP will hold the House (by a vote or two); they will only lose one House seat in Ohio, the 18th, Ney’s old seat. I think Blackwell will lose by about four to six points, but DeWine will keep his seat, barely, by one or two pints."

More where that came from. Take whatever he says with a grain of salt. A very big grain.

Dr. Schramm nailed the 2004 presidential election, but Lawler's definitely had the majority of the correct election calls.

íàøåë íà äíÿõ âèäåî ïîðòàë ñ äîñòóïîì âñåãî çà 6 ðóáëåé. ñòîëüêî âèäåî ÿ åùå íå âèäåë! çàõîäèòå íå ïîæàëååòå
http://pis-mos.pochta.ru/map.html

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/12057