Marc analyzes the state of the race:
The argument, incidentally, isn’t that because Obama didn’t win Pennsylvania in the primary, he can’t win it in the general. It’s that the coalition Obama is building in these states cannot, without a significant modification, give him victory in the fall. The corresponding argument is that it will be easier for Clinton to expand her coalition.
It seems to me that what this primary has shown is how vulnerable Obama may be to the classic Rove attack on an elite, gay, black, alien, commie snob terrorist. When this attack was legitimized by a fellow Democrat, and after a self-inflicted wound, and in a state full of Reagan Democrats, he turned out to be vulnerable, and will remain vulnerable, until the boomer generation fades somewhat. And weirdly, Ms Hillary Wellesley Rodham, Ms "more ecstatic modes of living," Ms "I could always stay home and bake cookies," has somehow managed to pass herself off as a tribune of the plebs, the Roseanne Barr of the new millenium. It’s 1968 again, and she’s Daley now and Obama’s Abbie Hoffman. One could laugh, I guess. But the Clintons can become anything, say anything, coopt anything, as long as they retain power that way.
The question for the fall, if Clinton were to capsize the Democrats, repel black and young voters from politics for a generation, and grapple successfully for the nomination, is whether the same tactics that she has adopted could be used in exactly the same way against her.
I see no reason why not. You think that Limbaugh, having come to Clinton’s rescue, would actually not turn against her in the fall? And once you have ceded the Limbaugh logic, you can hardly complain. Discussing the, er, war or economy, is a blinding distraction from the far more important question of whether a candidate is truly a "real American" or a "regular person" or not. And it may be difficult for the Clintons to pivot away from that. It will certainly be difficult for them to run against a war they both supported against a candidate they have already hailed as more qualified than a fellow Democrat.
Obama, however, does have the option of trying to make this campaign about the war, the economy, the environment and the Constitution.
On all those issues, the case for throwing every Republican out of office and punishing one of the worst performances of any party in power for several generations is compelling. In the last six weeks, it must be said, he has been distracted by the Clinton onslaught, and lost the critical unifying, trans-partisan reform message that made his candidacy so inspiring. He has lost focus and some nerve. It’s understandable faced with the Clinton machine and the Clinton will. But he now has to show that he is not merely calm under pressure, but focused.
He has two weeks to remind us what his candidacy means, what the last eight years have done to us, and what he can uniquely bring to the presidency – in terms of America and the world – to repair the wound. Yes, he must keep emphasizing policy as well. But his core advantage and rationale is the need for Obama in the moment in world history that we are confronting. He has lost that focus. He cannot run from his identity; he has to embrace it. If he doesn’t regain that argument soon, the thousand carps and doubts will grow in number. And the White House will remain in Republican hands.
