Will an Obama collapse bring political apocalypse?
posted at 3:30 pm on March 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Call it the Obamalypse, if you will. Andrew Sullivan makes an interesting argument that a Hillary Clinton victory over Barack Obama could create “mass flight from the process” as disillusioned voters embrace apathy and reject electoral politics altogether. He thinks that killing it would be 1968 all over again:
What I think this misses are the cultural and social consequences of beating Obama (or McCain) this way. I don’t mean beating Obama because the Clintons’ message is more persuasive, or because the Clintons’ healthcare plan is better, or because she has a better approach to Iraq. I mean: beating him by a barrage of petty attacks, by impugning his clear ability to be commander-in-chief, by toying with questions about his “Muslim past”, by subtle invocation of the race card, by intermittent reliance on gender identity politics, by taking faux offense to keep the news cycle busy (”shame on you, Barack Obama!”) and so on. If the Clintons beat Obama this way, I have a simple prediction. It will mean a mass flight from the process. It will alter the political consciousness of an entire generation of young voters - against any positive interaction with the political process for the foreseeable future. I’m not sure that Washington yet understands the risk the Clintons are taking with their own party and the future of American politics.
Pete Abel at The Moderate Voice disagrees. In an open response to Andrew, Pete says that the voters would only have themselves to blame for buying what the Clintons are selling:
Please. If the Clintons beat Obama this way, there’s no one to blame but us, we the people, we the voters. If an entire generation lets the Clintons turn them off from politics then I guess those ‘Yes we can’ chants were nothing but empty rhetoric after all. The facts of the matter are relatively simple: If we want a different kind of politics, if we truly believe ‘yes we can,’ then we better start acting like it. Mud-slinging won’t stop until mud-slinging is proven ineffective. And the only viable proof is this: For the buyers to refuse the sale.
Andrew has the better argument here, I believe, but the Clintons are not completely to blame. We have seen massive reform movements take to the streets when elections have been rigged or perverted, such as in Ukraine with the Orange Revolution. When voters start building expectations higher than anyone can deliver, their disillusionment can take very passionate form. I think Andrew estimates the potential destructive impact reasonably and realistically.
However, Abel points out where the real disillusionment will be placed. The Clintons have never really pretended to be anything other than ruthless, relentless pols who will do anything to win. In fact, that’s really been the Hillary message for the last couple of weeks. She’s tough enough to answer that red phone, and she’s tough enough to go toe-to-toe negative with Mr. Nice Guy. She’s going to win or collapse in the direction of the finish line, whichever comes last.
Obama himself will be the real source of the disillusionment. No one in politics could live up to the expectation he set for himself and his campaign, especially one who comes out of Chicago, as we are all learning. Unlike John McCain, who seems to take a bit of delight in delivering bad news to voters, Obama tended to tell people what they wanted to hear. The demagoguery over NAFTA came from a relentless pursuit of populism that hadn’t been a characteristic of his early campaign.
That doesn’t make Obama any worse than most politicians, and probably still a league above the Clintons. It does strip him of his New Politics conceit, though, and he has little else to offer. As David Brooks put it, even that New Politics identity has never translated into any specific policies or concrete improvements in American life, and his three short years in the Senate hasn’t shown any evidence that he’s tried to apply it anywhere except on the campaign stump.
The real Obamalypse might be better described as a little more maturation in the electorate. Instead of buying into soaring rhetoric without any track record of its application, voters might pay more attention to policy and experience in its pursuit. That isn’t as sexy or exciting as fainting over the next political messiah, but it will result in better candidates and better campaigns — and will eventually chase hucksters like the Clintons out of the arena.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Well, Hillary being elected is somewhat indistinguishable from an apocalypse all on its own…
Splunge on March 7, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Barackalypse. The term is Barackalypse.
frankj on March 7, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Think Harvey coined it.
frankj on March 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM
The one million question is:
Will Hussein Barack end up in a rehab facility like Britney Spears?
Indy Conservative on March 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Buckle up and stock the bar because whoever wins will be a trainwreck when it comes to immigration.
saiga on March 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM
I (surprisingly) think both have valid points. Sullivan might well be right about the apathy that could follow a Clinton win — particularly as she would have to pull it off with superdelegates (just as Obama will, but to a lesser degree). But Abel has a point to the extent that any apathy by the “Yes We Can” crowd would demonstrate the degree to which Obamamania is a cult of personality, as Obama and HRC are pretty close on the ideological scale.
Karl on March 7, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Nice piece Ed.
So if Obama falls apart then the people that believed in him would abandon the political process? I don’t see that as much of a loss. It would be like taking a license from someone that can’t drive.
blankminde on March 7, 2008 at 3:38 PM
The one million dollar question is…
See what you get when you’re under the influence of Soda?
Indy Conservative on March 7, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Uh…..yes.
amerpundit on March 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Oh please. Andrew Sullivan is doing what Andrew Sullivan does best: dramatic, ridiculous hyperbole.
If Obama goes out, it will be after he completely shatters his image as The Word-cum-Flesh. Sully might have had a point if Obama didn’t jump down into the gutter with Clinton, and might have had a point if Obama didn’t lie to Americans about his NAFTA plans, and might have had a point if Obama wasn’t connected to a dude like Rezko, but Obama is guilty as charged on all 3 counts and Sully has lost the argument.
amkun on March 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Obama has given true hope to thousands of state senators around the country that in three short years they can be president.
pedestrian on March 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Now, if Obama had done THAT, maybe he’d be in a better position.
yo on March 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Oh, and let’s pause a moment on this:
Clear ability to be commander-in-chief? Based on what? That “attack” of Hillary’s was absolutely legitimate. Of course, as pointed out on HotAir, it cuts even more strongly in favor of McCain. Sullivan is basically arguing that focusing on real issues is bad because it pops the hope balloon. No sale here.
Splunge on March 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM
In the HuffPo comments regarding the 1968/Barackalypse someone mentioned holding the DNC ransom until the chose Al Gore. There were a surprising number of people agreeing…
blankminde on March 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Hope. Change.
With what? The guns these people object to citizens having? Or are we talking Weather Underground here?
amerpundit on March 7, 2008 at 3:43 PM
The outcome would be far less damaging than if he became president. We are in for some rough times and when he is second guessed the race card will come very quickly into play. My family and I have far more to lose with Obama or Clinton in charge than MCcain.
TroubledMonkey on March 7, 2008 at 3:43 PM
If the Obama faithful were fed a face full of reality by the failure of their Messiah to mount his throne and decided to flee from politics altogether, then more power to them.
Well, less actually.
AbaddonsReign on March 7, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Has Andrew Sullivan been right before?
Just a question.
In other news, Dennis Kucinich announced today that -after his unsuccessful run for the Presidency- he decided to resign from his seat in the House of Representatives and return back to Mars.
Indy Conservative on March 7, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Did you say Huckster? I thought he was out already… : )
kcd on March 7, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Of course they will be disillusioned, but this is politics, sometimes you lose. It goes with the territory. If they want a spiritual leader, go find a preacher or a rabbi or priest.
Terrye on March 7, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Millions of young Moonbats will flee the process? GO HILLARY!
TheBigOldDog on March 7, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Good question. Some of the linked material talked about former Iraq vets (scoff) talking about some sort of military-esque operation. There was also that bit about how the peaceful approach obviously didn’t work in 1968.
The Weather Underground idea might be doable though. Bombings and such would have the same effect, but the responsibility would be ostensibly placed on the fringe rather than the base of Democrats.
blankminde on March 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM
It would be far better for the country if Obama’s supporters did abandon politics.
Let’s face it - they are socialists with a deep disrespect if not an outright hostility to America’s past and present.
The last thing we need are Obamiacs in the mold of Michelle Obama having any influence at all on the lives of the sane.
NoDonkey on March 7, 2008 at 3:50 PM
No mention to the MSM that have been shilliing for them, holding their water, spinning their lies, hiding the dirt, being the propoganda arm to lull the sheeple to sleep?
Seven Percent Solution on March 7, 2008 at 3:51 PM
LOL! BUT…as great as that seems to be, I can see the point. The process has already been damaged enough by the general publics refusal to get involved. At least if the young people do get involved they have some idea what is going on. They might even learn how wrong the left wing wackos are.
kcd on March 7, 2008 at 3:54 PM
If Obama loses, it will be like BDS^2
The derangement sufferers will be convinced there was a secret agreement between the Dems & Repubs to keep The Obama from winning because they were both afraid of the change & hope he’d bring.
It’s all Haliburton’s fault!
rbj on March 7, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Saint Andrew does have a point here, and a historical reference. What happened to the McGovern generation?
ChrisM on March 7, 2008 at 3:59 PM
It just occurred to me that if the young people today were being taught what the constitution really means and what it really means to be a patriot, Obama would not have near the followers he has today. And now, California is refusing to let kids be home schooled because of 1)money and 2)the indoctrination of our kids to liberalism.
kcd on March 7, 2008 at 3:59 PM
his clear ability to be commander-in-chief??? Andrew, please provide the name of your eye doctor so that I can avoid the rose colored glasses he has prescribed for you.
LCL4 on March 7, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Heh. I was kinda disillusioned when I went to Obama rally a few weeks ago. It was so so staged. I guess I’m young so I didn’t realize the extent how calculated and staged these events are. It was an eye opener for me. Not to single Obama… I’m sure every major political event is just like this. So it’s nothing new.
I believe in the American government and in our people. I whole-heartedly believe WE deserve better than the calculating and manipulative politicians we repeatedly have to choose from. I also believe (at least I hope) that beneath our political leaders stoic veneers are people who actually want to do good for our country.
terryannonline on March 7, 2008 at 4:03 PM
exactly, let the glassy eyed Obamaniacs be disillusioned and throw a temper tantrum. I’ll enjoy watching
windansea on March 7, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Kinda sounds like me and my reaction to McCains’ nomination.
JiangxiDad on March 7, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Obama does not have to answer questions about his fervent opposition to the death penalty. The one issue in the Illinois Senate that seemed to interest him was the effort to abolish the death penalty and to commute all extant death penalties. You will never hear Tim Russert or Brian Williams or Obama Girl Diane Sawyer ask Obama about his opposition to the death penalty. Back in 1988, Mike Dukakis got demolished in the deabte with Bush when he answered that he opposed the death penalty even for somebody who woud murder Mike’s own wife. While I thought Dukakis’s position on the death penalty was a sign of his foolishness, I respected Dukakis for being willing to lose the presidential race before he would dishonestly switch his position. But with Obama, he has nothing to fear. He will never be asked about the death penalty. It would defeat him in places like Wet Virginia but the MSM, particularly Russert and Williams and Blitzer, are determined to protect Barack Obama at all costs.
Larraby on March 7, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Andrew Sullivan - wasn’t he a Ron Paul acolyte just a coupla months ago?
Now he’s an Obamalamadingdong cultist?
This guy is given serious consideration?
catmman on March 7, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Political party partisans determine nominees and the issues to be discussed or ignored, BUT…
…independents, centrists, RINOs, and DINOs determine who wins. Barack gets more of these than Hillary=he’s more electable than Hillary. Higher delegate counts and higher popular votes prove this out, but what people are about to see is that the “open-armed” “party of the people” simply isn’t. That’s no secret to anyone right of Joe Lieberman, but it’s a full on heartattack shocker to KOSsacks and so forth.
Let them protest.
scottm on March 7, 2008 at 4:08 PM
This is what happens when you give speeches instead of solutions.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 7, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I hope Sullivan is right, for the first time in ages. I work with a few Obama cultists, and would love nothing better than to see them deluded, despondent, etc. They are really f*cking annoying.
BuzzCrutcher on March 7, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I think the only way the dems save face is if Hillary flat out loses.
Clinton beats Obama = blood
If it’s a brokered convention, and it doesn’t go to Obama, more blood.
I bet there is some serious back room bartering going on right now trying to convince Obama to take the VP job to ’save the party’, convincing him he’ll be a shoe-in in 2012 or 16.
No way Clinton will take VP to save the party. Doesn’t look like Obama will either at this point.
If theres blood, it would be a good time to take that ninety percentile of black democrat votes away.
cntrlfrk on March 7, 2008 at 4:11 PM
I need some statistics:
How many of those young college kids -supporters of Hussein- are on drugs?
How many have more than one partner?
How often they drink and party?
How often they are sober?
How many of them can point out Israel on the map?
And how many know the name of the Vice President?
How many know that ‘Hussein’ is his middle name (that he’s trying to hide)?
Just few questions among lots of others.
The answer might be revealing. It will show you the kind of supporters Hussein is fooling.
Indy Conservative on March 7, 2008 at 4:11 PM
They’ve already abandoned reality. Politics wouldn’t be a big jump from there.
fogw on March 7, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I totally agree. I’d rather have a president whose whole image wasn’t dependent on them being perfect. The only thing that makes it through the MSM candidate-choose-o-matic is professional politicians and snake oil salesmen.
“Buy Immigration Reform! It’ll cure what ails ya!”
blankminde on March 7, 2008 at 4:13 PM
His supporters are an army of Jay Gatsby’s chasing their Daisy Buchanan.
rw on March 7, 2008 at 4:13 PM
A greater collapse will occur if Obama is elected based on this belief that he can make a country where “all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”
And then he doesn’t follow through.
Because he can’t.
I’m not sure, though, that understanding the limits of politics, of government is such a bad thing.
Thomas Carlyle was once asked by a young Scottish man what he (the young man) could do “to save the world.”
“Go back to Scotland and make a decent man of yourself,” Carlyle answered back.
SteveMG on March 7, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Who would be disillusioned, the liberal wing of the liberal party? “Oh please brer Fox, don’ throw me in da briar patch…”
Akzed on March 7, 2008 at 4:13 PM
I don’t think that is the case considering Obama and Clinton.
There isn’t a lick of difference between what the two want to do. The only difference is who gets to do it to us.
If either had any nobility behind their campaigns both would be calling the other saying, “lets just flip a coin today to decide twixt President and Vice President positions, then kick McCain’s butt”.
But we don’t hear that, which reduces both to power mad egoists.
Onager on March 7, 2008 at 4:13 PM
What “clear ability”?
Like 1968, there probably will be trouble at the convention, but that will be from a different flank consisting of anarchists who probably don’t see Obama as their savior.
It’s way too early to make predictions about wholesale rioting. Let’s see how far Obama falls from his own weight first.
Buy Danish on March 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Uh, earth to Andrew. The Clinton mafia has already altered the political consciousness of an entire generation. Why do you think they’re so hated?
Look what they did to Newt Gingrich… Ken Starr… Kathleen WIley… Linda Tripp… Billy Dale… and on and on. But now we’re supposed to share Mr. Sullivan’s river of crocodile tears just because those monsters are targeting someone he’s politically fond of?
Uh, yeah.
miles on March 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Maybe, but this generation has low voter turnout as it is. So the net may be small to nil.
If any group will be disaffected, it will be black voters. They may decide to sit out the election.
Obama’s Blame-America-First extremists, on the other hand, will simply redouble their bitterness. By then they may be so angry at Shrillary that they demand another candidate (e.g., Goracle).
petefrt on March 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Waay to fair, balanced, and mature, Ed.
Maybe you could just gloat about how there will be a mass exodus of brainless young liberals from the process. Until they grow up and start voting Republican.
misterpeasea on March 7, 2008 at 4:31 PM
This political apolcalypse of Obama starts off
as their political star begins to collaspe on it
self,burning away massive amounts of Hope,Audacity,
and change.
Once all three have been exhausted,and Obama’s Star
begins to collapse,whats left is a gapeing,Abysis
of dispair.
And anything or anybody of the Liberal Party will
not be able to escape this void,setting off years
of pitch darkness within their own party,drifting
off in political space,forever!
canopfor on March 7, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I just can’t get “L.A. Story” out of my mind…when Steve Martin goes under the shower, and…
Lockstein13 on March 7, 2008 at 4:35 PM
…LOOKING AT LIBERAL PATHOLOGY IN “SLOW-MO”
Lockstein13 on March 7, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Yep…a liberal black hole is what we’ve got alright.
blankminde on March 7, 2008 at 4:36 PM
One can only hope.
moxie_neanderthal on March 7, 2008 at 4:36 PM
The “elite” and the media are already picking the POTUS is seems. So what is the difference? A year ago we were all agreeing that McAmnesty didn’t have a snowball’s chance…
brtex on March 7, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Uh . . . based on his extensive military experience? No, that can’t be right, Barack has never served in the military. Maybe it’s based on his extensive experience serving on Senate committees that oversee military operations like those in Afghanistan. No, wait, Barack didn’t actually have time to do any oversight on that committee, ’cause he was too busy running for President. Maybe it’s based on Barack’s clever idea to find bin Laden by invading our nuclear-armed ally Pakistan?
AZCoyote on March 7, 2008 at 4:39 PM
The delegate counts give Hillary long, but not impossible odds; as long as she stays in, win or lose, it should be good for GOP chances (though hardly makes November anything but a tossup).
With that in mind and realizes her need to press an attack for her own benefit, I offered her some advice (a small piece of which I shamelessly stole from this site).
michaelo on March 7, 2008 at 4:39 PM
There’s a race-card just itching to be played. How about “Obamaclysm”?
LimeyGeek on March 7, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Bless you terryann. Try to influence as many young people as possible! You have a great head on your shoulders. Keep it up!
kcd on March 7, 2008 at 4:42 PM
What if Obama just sucks?
Can’t they simply see through an empty suit and realize that their initial wistful, wishful thinking may have been mistaken and that candidates as lightweight as Obama may not stand up to hard politicking in the real world?
Just because he looked good without any scrutiny is hardly a reason to be disillusioneed with anything but their own desperate naivete.
profitsbeard on March 7, 2008 at 4:49 PM
I think I know what it is! It’s his clear ability to marshal troops for community service projects in Chicago. With that experience he can lead our military in doing what it’s really meant for - a meals on wheels program.
Buy Danish on March 7, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Who turned on American Idol?
I thought this was an election?
desertdweller on March 7, 2008 at 4:51 PM
The Obama Girl, showing early disenchantment with the system, couldn’t be bothered to vote for Obama.
Stephen M on March 7, 2008 at 4:56 PM
She was a cult member; before there was a cult. Now she’s bored with it already. She’s just ahead of the curve, that’s all.
lorien1973 on March 7, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Priceless.
I can just hear the tiny cogs whirring in these kids’ heads when the presidential election arrives - “What? They want us to, like, go vote again? How dialup“
LimeyGeek on March 7, 2008 at 5:02 PM
A loss of votes from pouting empty headed dreamers?
Would they cancel out stay at home conservatives?
BL@KBIRD on March 7, 2008 at 5:05 PM
B.O. looks great in a suit.
He can give stirring speeches.
He writes inspiring books.
And …… uh…….let’s see, what else has he done?
pilamaye on March 7, 2008 at 5:07 PM
I’d say its an accomplishment that he made it this far on nothing but fumes.
blankminde on March 7, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I want Obamania to die even more than I wanted Disco to die.
pseudonominus on March 7, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Some people are alleging that the kids position is that they must be given whatever they want when they want it or they’ll have a temper tantrum. Well, let them rant and carry on all they want. Later we can discuss the whole thing with the ones that make the transition into adulthood.
snaggletoothie on March 7, 2008 at 5:14 PM
A lot of conservatives vow to the same thing since McCain is our nominee.
A funny thing about apathy–those who are, think they are making a statement. They just end up being tools for the other side. (This applies to both camps.)
It’s like, if I can’t have the whole pie I don’t want any of it.
How many more babies would have died if pro-live people had had that attitude?
davidk on March 7, 2008 at 5:18 PM
The point I would make is that while some in the black community may be resentful, the real organs of the public opinion are more concerned about winning the election and without their megaphone any complaint will be short lived.
How the public will respond to an Obama lose will depend on how the MSM responds to it. A personality cult can be maintained as long as the media allow it. If the MSM tires of Obama and brings him down, they will not complain about it. On the other hand, if they stand by his messiah status and he loses anyway, they will be resentful but they may try to patch over the hurt and wait until after the election to make a big issue of it in order to prevent a Republican victory. If Hillary then loses the election, they will let her have it big time; just like they did with Kerry.
KW64 on March 7, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Selections from Andrew Sullivan’s writing:
“his clear ability to be commander-in-chief”
BH Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine; a major, if not The, example for corruption in America. BHO was introduced as a political candidate at the house of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; (former?) radicals, involved in domestic bombings, persons-non-grata at certain events (2006); real un-Americans types.
Specifically, what job(s) has BHO ever held that would develop the ability to be commander-in-chief?
“by toying with questions about his “Muslim past””
Andrew seems okay with B. Hussein Obama’s church’s creed and BHO’s pastor’s (a major influence on BHO) link to and words about one L. Farrakhan.
“by subtle invocation of the race card”
Does the book “Dreams . . .” (who bailed on BHO when he was 2? Who raised him, fed him, clothed him educated him . . . ?) and Michelle Obama’s “proud of this country for the first time in my adult life” meet Andrew’s definition of “subtle” and “race card”?
What about BHO’s church’s creed?
“The reason so many people have re-engaged with politics this year is because many sense their country is in a desperate state and because only one candidate has articulated a vision and a politics big enough to address it without dividing the country down the middle again.”
“Hope” and “Change”? Or does Andrew mean “invade Pakistan”, “ sit down and negotiate with Ahmedinejad, no preconditions”, etc?
“For the first time in decades, a candidate has emerged who seems able to address the country’s and the world’s needs with a message that does not rely on Clintonian parsing or Rovian sleaze.”
What notable quote from Antoin Rezko does Andrew Sullivan have in mind?
“For the first time since the 1960s, we have a potential president able to transcend the victim-mongering identity politics so skillfully used by the Clintons. ”
Has Andrew read “Dreams . . .” carefully? Did he understand what he read?
Arbalest on March 7, 2008 at 5:22 PM
This is why Andrew Sullivan is such a tool:
He lived through the Reagan Revolution, but just can’t bring hinself to believe that people really were proud of their country.
sweeper on March 7, 2008 at 5:27 PM
I have waded into the sewer that is kosland and let me tell you, they say that hillary is trying to steal the election.
Even though obama hasn’t won it. And wont, I think that neither one of them will have the needed delegates.
But that doesn’t matter.
She is stealing an election that Obama hasn’t won!
waaaahhh! wahhhhh!
kosland has turned into obamaland.
and kos jumped the shark today with his screed on the ‘darkening’ of black people.
ArmyAunt on March 7, 2008 at 5:31 PM
I don’t buy the fatalism; I think before people become disillussioned with the system they’ll first become disillusioned with their party and become “freelance voters”, which seems to be the progression in other parts of society where people feel their loyalty isn’t worth it. I don’t understand why Sullivan is so quick to write off the possibility that, should Clinton steal the nomination procedurally, Obama’s supporters wouldn’t vote in mass numbers in the general against her. With 50+% negatives already, barring some horrific “senior moment” or health scare from McCain, Hillary would have to be Dead Nominee Walking.
Secondly, all this micro-reaction to minute-by-minute detail starts to feel like day trading to me after awhile - and for the vast majority of people who got sucked into that, it wasn’t very productive. The primaries are not the same as the general election. In the general you’re playing for the last two minutes of the game and all this psychology and the arc of momentum, perceptions, etc. are much more meaningful. The primaries are by definition, party-controlled processes with arcane rules and the goal of accumulating the most delegates at the end. Who cares where you are today, as long as you’re in the game. If you look at Obama’s stats, in spite of the near-universal non-stop dumping on he’s taking, last time I checked, he not only had a pretty good March 4, but overall I wouldn’t trade his position for Hillary’s for anything. Obama and his campaign can go mute, walk out on stage and wave for an hour and he’ll still get enough of the remaining delegates to force Clinton’s hand at the convention.
sanguine4 on March 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM
The nutroots reminds me of a Chuck E. Cheese that accidentally got magic mushrooms for the pizzas.
“My party… it’s melting“
rhodeymark on March 7, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Thanks for the scoop from kosland. I refuse to give that sewer site even one hit, so I appreciate your reporting.
Seeing vile people turn against each other redeems my faith that justice eventually prevails. It warms my cold little conservative heart.
petefrt on March 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM
You’re right, B.D., I’d forgotten about Barack’s “community organizing” experience. That clearly qualifies him to be Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. And if Barack gets all those multi-billion dollar spending programs of his passed (including his nearly $1 trillion U.S. taxpayer give-away to the U.N. to combat “global poverty”), there are going to be a lot more of us in the U.S. who will be needing those meals-on-wheels delivered to our doors.
AZCoyote on March 7, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Exactly… Heck, even I look electable on paper. But, when you get right down to it, I’m not. My views are just to “extreme” for the 2% in the middle, and the 48% on the left. Not to mention my total lack of relevant experience in the political field, economic field, and national security field. In other words… the same problem Obama has.
Jim C
JimC99 on March 7, 2008 at 7:09 PM
And we can be damned sure that his lovely wife will not be taking time out of her busy day to make deliveries.
Buy Danish on March 7, 2008 at 7:17 PM
thus spoketh Obama girl
all hat and no cattle
windansea on March 7, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Let’s face it. BO only has for his experience sticking posters on telephone poles. That’s it. I’m amazed he’s gotten this far. It show how utterly shallow and inane the Dhimmicrats are. He’s their perfect candidate, an anti military, anti life, anti free speech, anti business messiah.
Mojave Mark on March 7, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Which is why you should have supported Huckabee.
And why, if God chooses to work a miracle and make Huckabee the nominee at the convention, you’ll be thankful. Huckabee is the only one who will secure the borders. He committed in writing to
Ensure that the border fence construction is completed by July 1, 2010.
Red Pill on March 7, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Barack said publicly, “I pray to Jesus every night.”
I’d like to see even one reporter have the courage to repeat that back to him and then ask him to confess, “Jesus is Lord.”
He won’t and he can’t because he is a fraud and a deceiver.
Come on, Clinton supporters…(I know there are some of you out there)…I’m giving you an easy way bring him down.
Red Pill on March 7, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Disco
BellBottoms
Paris Hilton
Obamamania
faraway on March 7, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Barackalypse. The term is Barackalypse.
frankj on March 7, 2008 at 3:35 PM
You nailed this one, frankj. I’ve missed you.
As for the coming Barackalypse, I’m all for it. Sure, the collapse of the leftist/farm/mobster/teacher/racist/pimp/union coalition will be fun to watch, but politics is a participation sport. Can’t wait.
Jaibones on March 7, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Being a young voter myself- and knowing where most of my peers stand - I won’t be crying if they leave the political proess.
eski502 on March 7, 2008 at 11:16 PM
I thought this already happened when Bush was reelected.
Ortzinator on March 7, 2008 at 11:20 PM
I don’t see anything distinctive in the electioneering between Clinton and Obama. Moreover, American electoral politics has survived assassinations, scandals, third-party challenges, and electoral frauds. Even more, the Americans who would actually abandon electoral politics because just one more politician “played hardball” are probably not helpful to American electoral politics in the first place.
The great significance being attributed to a defeat of Barack Obama seems sensationalistic. Maybe some of the Americans’ leftists will riot in Denver if they don’t get their way. Maybe some blacks and some other Americans will stop participating in electoral politics. We’ve seen it all before, and the motion and order of the heavens remain the same.
Kralizec on March 7, 2008 at 11:31 PM
This seems like a little political milennialism to go along with the the messianism and apocalypticism.
Kralizec on March 7, 2008 at 11:41 PM
“Obamaclysm” still gives me a peculiar erotic shudder
No it doesn’t.
Awww…….crap……I just don’t care
LimeyGeek on March 8, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Sure. He’s the Last Real Conservative.[tm]
Just ask him.
Kensington on March 8, 2008 at 1:34 AM
Dear Lord, I can only hope so. Time to get rid of the two biggest special interest groups in the country. Having the dem party utterly implode/explode would be a very fitting start.
rotorhead on March 8, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Liberal Democrats leaving the political process en masse…dare we dream?
fusionaddict on March 8, 2008 at 5:23 AM
The sooner that Ochlocracy is seen for what it is, and outlawed, the better!
OldEnglish on March 8, 2008 at 6:11 AM
No matter. It would be Rush’s fault.
drjohn on March 8, 2008 at 9:51 AM
I guess I’m getting mean in my older years, not that I’m that old, 56yrs. It would be just fine with me if Hillary wins the dem. primary and the Obamabots get disillusioned, even p.o.’d Let them get older, get some perspective and THEN, vote. Some may even get, gasp, conservative!
2theright on March 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM