I'm not sure what gave MSNBC the right to think they could call it, but the democratic primary is not over. There are still primaries left where Clinton is by far the favorite. At the end of this process, neither Clinton nor Obama will probably have enough delegates to guarantee the nomination. To say that Clinton should just drop out doesn't make any sense, to her or to the masses of voters who will support her in the upcoming primaries.
On the other hand, Obama is probably going to be the nominee. Besides the benefits of Tim Russert's coronation, Clinton has gone so negative in the primaries that she probably can't recover enough to earn new support amongst the party. Obama, on the other hand, hasn't attacked her nearly as hard, leaving him a little tarnished, but still able to stand as the unifying symbol of new polities as he did back in February.
In any event, I'm looking forward to an election about real issues: the economy, Supreme Court justices and, most importantly, the war in Iraq. Prediction: you're going to hear a hell of a lot more about "change" from now until November.
P.S. - The best thing I ever heard Chris Matthews say was on the Tuesday of North Carolina/Indiana: "Next, when we come back, we'll talk about the role race played in the election. Aw, do we have to? Haven't we talked about it enough already? Can't we just go one night without it? All right (resigned), when we come back, we'll talk about race."
4 comments:
Ah, our current household debate. Yes, there are still primaries left, but it is now fair to say that Obama is the presumptive nominee. He only needs 174 delegates, which he will easily attain between the upcoming primaries and the deluge of superdelegates that will jump on his ship at month end/beginning of June. Clinton doesn't need to drop out, she is free to run for as long as she likes - she seems to have millions to loan her own floundering campaign.
Both Obama and McCain have already started to map out their fall campaign strategies because that's when we'll actually get to hear about real policy differences between the candidates. Finally!
I must agree with the wife - Russert was showing the numbers after NC/IN, and Clinton needed to win more than 65% of the vote in the remaining primaries to win. She'll do well (especially in those states with her base of "hard working, white Americans"), but not that well. And let's be honest - for quite some time now, the media has had more influence on the outcome of these elections than voters, so of course they're calling it for Obama. As Mrs. John Edwards pointed out so eloquently in a Times editorial a few weeks ago, the reason that very qualified candidates like Chris Dodd and Joe Biden don't get very far is because the media writes them off months before the first primary. On the other end of the spectrum, the media might have had something to do with Fred Thompson's meteoric rise to 2nd place in the republican race before he had even declared his candidacy or made any statement about policy, issues, or any reason that he would have been qualified to be president (other than the fact that he was on Law and Order, which is all I needed).
And did you really say: "In any event, I'm looking forward to an election about real issues: the economy, Supreme Court justices and, most importantly, the war in Iraq." I agree that the argument about who will be bringing more change will be fierce (albeit pointless), but I fear that - as usual - this election is not going to be about the issues. Sure, Obama and McCain will try to talk about the issues, but that's not why they'll get people to vote for them. Republicans don't win elections talking about issues important to all Americans. They win elections by making people so scared to vote for the other guy that they are left with no choice.
True, Republicans generally don't run on issues. But this one might be different. Newt Gingrich has already recognized that the Republicans won't run if they push Jeremiah Wright (especially since McCain has his own issues with his preacher).
We've got two candidates who differ markedly on real issues, like the war, abortion and the economy. This isn't like 2000 or 2004, where the candidates went out of their way to agree with each other. When there are definitive policy differences on real issues, its possible that gay immigrant terrorists looking to get married might not be enought.
It is possible that this will be about the issues, and I really hope that you're right, but I don't think that the republicans will pass on the "opportunities" that come with running against a Muslim, unpatriotic, elitist black man whose middle name is "Hussein" and is best freinds with a crazy preacher who hates white people.
Actually, the republicans won't even have to do much - just leave it to "hard working white americans" to get the ball rolling.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html
Post a Comment