The exit poll data does not suggest that Clinton won on a last-minute wave. Yes, she narrowly won those who decided on the day – 39 – 36. But Obama won every other period in the last month. Clinton’s biggest margin was among those who had made up their minds more than a month ago – by 48 – 31. This was a victory based on the old party machine, the core partisan Democrats, and the Clinton loyalists. She takes the Democrats back to a bunkered partisan posture. It would be a disaster for them up against McCain in November. Or as one reader put it:
Lets see … A minority candidate of near-unprecedented rhetorical skill whom even the Republicans fear has a chance to reunite the country versus a party hack riding a wave of nepotism and backroom arm twisting.
There is a "Bradley effect" but not the one you mention. The one that matters is that whomever Bill Bradley endorses (Dean just before the Iowa caucuses in 2004, Obama this week) immediately loses.
Some home truths: a tough, long primary battle will take the sting out of the powerful backlash that he is the function of a fad of euphoria, marketing hype, or gas-baggery. It will take the edge off the criticism that he is untested. It will help him prove his mettle and endurance.
His coolness in response to adversity is one of his stronger personal attributes. This could be highlighted.
No question: he and Michelle were getting a little cocky. Time to let some of the air out of that balloon. Again: fighting for it will make him a better candidate and a better president.
In a long, drawn out battle with the Clintons, Obama will have a lot of cheering from the Republican and Independent sections of the crowd. If he beats Clinton not in a sudden burst of fervor, but in a long, brutal war for delegates, then all the more reason why Republicans and Independents will come to him in the fall.
Ross takes me to task for downplaying Obama’s liberalism. That’s a little unfair for a blogger who wrote last May:
He may, in fact, be the most effective liberal advocate I’ve heard in my lifetime. As a conservative, I think he could be absolutely lethal to what’s left of the tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and small government that I find myself quixotically attached to.
I don’t expect the Democrats to be the party of limited government. But any reward for the Republicans after the massive expansion of government power and spending under Bush would be much more fatal. Because it would destroy even the potential for a party of limited government in the future – by ceding the GOP to spendthrift Christianists. So voting for Obama to punish the GOP and then hope for a revival of conservatism in the ashes doesn’t seem like such a contradiction to me. I find it staggering that commentators on the right who have said virtually nothing about Bush’s nanny-statism and fiscal irresponsibility these past few years start raising these issues immediately with Obama. Yes, Bill Bennett, I’m looking at you. I’m sorry but you have zero credibility on these matters. And neither do most of the Beltway Republican punditocracy.
I also just think that Obama is a pragmatic liberal. His judgments in the past have been largely practical and reasonable. He is not an ideologue. Nor is he an excessive partisan. Those qualities are admirable from a conservative point of view. As for Burkeanism, I agree it can be an amorphous concept. Because it allows for a great deal of lee-way for prudence to determine particular judgments in history, it allows for minimal change and maximal change within its boundaries. I don’t think this makes it meaningless as a concept. It is the way a society changes that Burke was interested in. He backed the huge change of the American revolution, for example. And all we’re talking about with Obama is a prudent response to an ill-begotten war, some measures to tackle a failing healthcare system and an attempt to tackle the emergent problem of climate change. And all in a spirit of national reconciliation. This is no Robespierre, Ross.
Ross claims there is still some space to the left of Bush. Sure – but much less than there was eight years ago. Put it this way: if a Democratic president had added $32 trillion to the next generation’s debt in eight years, if he’d bungled a war, if he’d abrogated habeas corpus indefinitely and authorized torture, do you think a Republican would be criticized as a leftist for wanting to withdraw troops, and extend healthcare insurance – without mandates – for more of the working poor?
Come off it. There are two possible solutions to GOP degeneracy: Obama and McCain. As of last week, there appeared only one: Obama.
It’s a deal-breaker for me too. If a candidate cannot accept Darwinian evolution, then I simply lose all respect for him or her. I do not trust their empirical judgment, which means I don’t believe their political decisions will be affected by, er, reason. Joyner is right:
One of the things that never ceases to amaze me about those who support creationism, intelligent design and oppose the concept of evolution is that they are amazing hypocrites. They will say things like, ‘Evolution is only a theory.’ No. This. Is. Wrong. Evolution, i.e. that organisms change at a genetic level, is an observed fact. The theory man has constructed to explain the myriad of facts that fall under the broad umbrella of evolution is ‘just a theory’.
However, this applies to other real phenomena such as gravity.
Take a penny and drop it. It falls to the floor. It always falls to the floor. Of all the billions and billions of times people have dropped pennies (hear on earth) there is not one instance where the penny has not fallen to the floor. Do we fully understand gravity and how it works? No. Is there a single theory of gravity? No. Are there gaps in the theory? Yes. So why dont all these people who fight so vigorously against evolution fight just as vigorously against gravity? My guess is because they know that people will regard them as irrational kooks who really and truly are anti-science.
The Dish 