You watch him do it. In a conference call today, he said:
"I don’t know what’s going to happen. I know it’s going to be a little closer than people expect. You’ve just got to keep your chin up and keep fighting."
If this primary is not an Obama double-digit win, the Clintons will spin Hillary as the "come-back kid". You can see it coming. Just brace yourself.
Matt Welch has a useful round-up. Radley Balko has his say here. Brian Doherty responds here. Nick Gillespie here. Jesse Walker here. I think all of us of libertarian-conservative bent who have been buoyed by the Ron Paul revolution are disheartened and shocked. On reflection, although I just don’t believe he wrote those repulsive sentences himself, I think Paul needs to explain more. As in: who did write them? Who did publish them? What was the connection between them and the congressman?
I also want to reiterate that those of us who supported the Ron Paul movement find these sentiments despicable. They are emphatically not what we are supporting and have supported – a return to constitutional principles, individual liberty, fiscal prudence and a foreign policy that is not based on war, torture and indefinite occupation of other people’s countries. As I wrote, I think much less of Ron Paul today; but I do not think less of the principles he has expressed and defended in this campaign.
The cub of polar bear Vera is seen in the hands of a care taker at the Nuernberger Tiergarten on January 8, 2007 in Nuremberg, Germany. Her companion Vilma had given birth to probably two cubs in December 2007 which now seem to have been devoured by the mother herself. A keeper of the Nuremberg Zoo did not see any signs of the two cubs whose voices had been heard before when he checked the cave on January 7, 2008. (Nuernberger Tiergarten via Getty Images)
David Frum was nothing compared to James Wolcott:
I have nothing against Obama–I’ve donated money to his campaign, as I have Hillary’s–I’ll vote for any Democrat over any Republican–but as obnoxious as is the chortling, crowing misogyny of a Chris Matthews or the rightwing buffoon (Michael Graham, I believe) Imus had on his show this morning (or Imus himself, for that matter), the rah-rah gaga Beatlemania oozing out of the Huffington Post over Obama is even more revolting. Watching middle-aged men reclaim their innocence and idealism is like having to retrace Kevin Costner’s steps through a field of dreams all over again–it was corny enough the first time.
One thing we won’t ever have to worry about: James Wolcott reclaiming his innocence.
They’re having to turn donors away in NYC.
Obama will win tonight; but the euphoria of the past few days will be impossible to sustain. It is inherently unstable. Clinton’s naked appeal for sympathy yesterday may well rally some older female voters to her side. A victory for Obama in single digits is more likely than a blow-out. Then we’ll have the Clinton campaign shake-up stories. Then she and her husband will unload whatever dirt they can on him – using the classic arms-length 527 Rove techniques. Then they will try to use their party muscle to intimidate Democratic loyalists to stay with the establishment in California and Florida and New York.
This is not over by any means. The Clintons have too much to lose and they have no scruples in fighting to keep their power. If they can destroy Obama, they will. His job is to stay calm, cool and determined. And all of it is good training for the fall. What we’re seeing is if Obama can survive brutal attacks. It’s a good system for testing future candidates. So far, he has shown he can out-organize, out-argue and out-fund-raise the Clinton machine. Can he now outlast their bile and rise above their anger? That we will soon find out.
(Photo: Terance Gallagher shows her support for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) January 6, 2008 in Manchester, New Hampshire. By Joe Raedle/Getty.)
Here’s a classic response:
Q: [Bill Clinton] also called your campaign a fairy tale. How do you respond to that?
O: I understand they’re frustrated right now. I suspect that they’ll both try to get back on track in terms of the strategy for them to do better than they feel they’re doing right now.
Is … Obama. His appeal is not faith-based. I certainly don’t believe he is going to change the world. I think he has the ability to lead this country in a pragmatic and unifying way, and to move us past the often pointless polarization of the Rove years. Headline Junky gets it:
The irony might turn out to be that while America might be yearning for a demagogue, Obama is unwilling to become one.
Already felt in Chicago:
In the six days since Obama’s decisive victory in the Iowa caucuses, upwards of 10,000 people registered to vote in Chicago, figures seldom — if ever — seen for a presidential primary.
They’re mainly young. The next generation has found a candidate.
A reader writes:
This is exactly this sort of thoughtfulness and intellectual honesty that makes Obama so appealing. Rather than give a facile political answer, he was open to the possibility that more information could affect his opinion. To me this is not a waffle at all, just a recognition that one’s position should be determined by the available facts.
This came out during Saturday’s debate, during the health care discussion. Clinton tried to claim he had changed positions; he calmly explained that in a hypothetical sense, the single-payer system made sense, but given the practical reality in the US, a different approach was required. This is nuanced and transparent, and I’m in favor.
And that is why a conservative of doubt can support him.
The Dish 