Past His Expiration Date?
Victor Davis Hanson compares the recent media craze over Barack Obama with the Pet Rock phenemenon. The comparison is not flattering to Obama - or the rocks for that matter.
In fall 1975 I remember sitting in the Stanford student lounge watching two apparently educated and bright students compare their pet rocks, as the craze spread all over Silicon Valley and then went national. By summer few would admit they had purchased one. Never underestimate the ability of mass wired consumer society to go hysterical.
Something like that happened with the Obama campaign in mid-February, as he became the new generation's pet rock. No one knew what he had done; no one knew what he would do; no one cared whether they knew; all only wanted to be a part of it. It was a sort of self-described "movement" to "change the world," that offered absolution for all sorts of sins, real and imagined, of commission and omission, an atonement for past and present, here and abroad.
And now, as some people wake up from their pet rock purchase, they are seeing they've de facto nominated someone rated about the Senate's most liberal senator based on three years of experience there. The Democrats have boxed them into a situation of running a candidate that has out-sourced all negative attacks to the New York Times, political junkies and columnists, in order to remain above the fray and loyal to the "new" politics of change and hope.
Certainly Hillary Clinton is hoping - heck, she's betting - that Obama is a passing fad that is already over. Hence the faux offers of letting him ride on her ticket as a fifth wheel. But there is a nagging doubt that is worrying the Democrats. Obama is not winning the big states that really decide elections because of their huge electoral college votes. He is winning in small states with caucus processes. That, not the Pet Rock, passing fad thing, may be the thing that finally ends the Obama phenomenon.
Because the establishment will not back him if he can't demonstrate the ability to carry the big states. They'll back him, Pet Rock or not, if he can. If not, all bets are off. Pennsylvania may be his Waterloo.
By Mwalimu Daudi, Sunday, 9 March , 2008 @ 9:29 pm
Because the establishment will not back [Obama] if he can’t demonstrate the ability to carry the big states.
In this election cycle the Democrat Party has managed to voluntarily impale itself on the twin horns of identity politics - Racism and Sexism. They cannot extract themselves from one without sliding further onto the other. But if history is any guide, the Clintons will get what they want.
O.K. - I admit it! My horns metaphor is crummy!
By MikeM, Monday, 10 March , 2008 @ 5:59 am
<blockquote>Obama is not winning the big states that really decide elections because of their huge electoral college votes. He is winning in small states with caucus processes. That, not the Pet Rock, passing fad thing, may be the thing that finally ends the Obama phenomenon. </blockquote>
<p>This shows up my major objection to "Super Tuesday" and the rush to have as many primaries as possible as early as possible. You get a "fad" candidate winning big, and you don’t get a good hard look at the candidates and their strengths and weaknesses until it’s almost too late. As a result you end up with this kind of "he doesn’t win in big states" analysis until the nomination is almost secure. (Of course, as a Republican, I wouldn’t mind the Dems running Barak "McGovern" Obama in the fall.)
<p>And the people pushing for the short primary season are mostly the same people trying to eliminate the Electoral College, but that’s an arguement for another time.
By Neo, Monday, 10 March , 2008 @ 7:17 am
<a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/72572">Right on schedule.</a>
By feeblemind, Monday, 10 March , 2008 @ 7:26 am
The argument that Obama can’t win California because HRC beat him there is not a convincing one. Barack may not be winning the big states against HRC, but he is not running against her this fall. He will be a running against a candidate that can barely win 50-60% of the vote in his own primary even though he has won the nom. I remember Bush the Elder winning primaries with similar numbers in 1992. It did not bode well for the general election.
By Rich Horton, Monday, 10 March , 2008 @ 11:00 am
The argument that Obama can’t win California because HRC beat him there is not a convincing one. Barack may not be winning the big states against HRC, but he is not running against her this fall.
If you are gonna use that as your standard dont you have to discount Obama’s wins in places like South Carolina, Idaho and anywhere else Democrats dont stand a chance?
By Bill, Monday, 10 March , 2008 @ 2:37 pm
If by the fickle finger of fate Obama is elected, he will make Carter look good.