McCain Ascendant!

This half-agrees with my official editorial position:

GOP strategists mull McCain ‘blowout’

It sounds crazy at first. Amid dire reports about the toxic political environment for Republican candidates and the challenges facing John McCain, many top GOP strategists believe he can defeat Barack Obama — and by a margin exceeding President Bush’s Electoral College victory in 2004.

...But the contours of the electoral map, combined with McCain’s unique strengths and the nature of Obama’s possible vulnerabilities, have led to a cautious and muted optimism that McCain could actually surpass Bush’s 35-electoral-vote victory in 2004. Though they expect he would finish far closer to Obama in the popular vote, the thinking is that he could win by as many 50 electoral votes.

I have long maintained that McCain-Obama ends in a landslide; I just can't say who will win.  People like "Hope and Change, but if "Hope and Change" founders on the very real question of whether the Emperor has any clothes at all, McCain wins.

MORE:  May I express my resentment of this Newsweek poll with its Racial Resentment Index?

Obama's race may well explain his difficulty in winning over white voters. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, participants were asked to answer questions on a variety of race-related topics including racial preferences, interracial marriage, attitudes toward social welfare and general attitudes toward African-Americans. Respondents were grouped according to their answers on a "Racial Resentment Index." Among white Democrats with a low Racial Resentment Index rating, Obama beat McCain in a hypothetical match-up 78 percent to 17 percent. That is virtually identical to Clinton's margin in the category, 79 percent to 13 percent. But among white Democrats with high scores on the Racial Resentment Index, the picture was very different: Obama led McCain by only 18 points (51 to 33) while Clinton maintained a much larger 59-point lead (78 to 18).
Who exactly are these high Racial Resentment Index voters? A majority, 61 percent, have less than a four-year college education, many are older (44 percent were over the age of 60 compared to just 18 percent under the age of 40) and nearly half (46 percent) live in the South.

I am withholding judgment until I see comparable polls on "White Guilt" and ageism.  I also want to see pollsters probe whether a white woman with Obama's record of achievement could possibly be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate; then they should ask President John Edwards whether a smooth talking white guy with no resume can win the Democratic nomination and the White House.

I ranted about this when Geraldine Ferraro stated the obvious.

PILING ON: Karl at Team Protein is excellent on the deficiencies of the Newsweek poll, as expected.

Comments

[kim]

"Joltin' Joe' could make it a landslide, either way. McCain should grab him, except that I doubt Lieberman would go with Obama. No hurry, I guess; let the suspense build. Better, keep it as an option to see how the summer plays out.
=====================

[kaz]

I'm left wondering how they defined the 'South'. And how they split things geographically in general.

To say almost half is in the South implies over half is in the North, doesn't it?

[Cecil Turner]

Obama's race may well explain his difficulty in winning over white voters.

Right. Think it might also help explain his success with black voters? Ya gotta love it: "vote for Obama or you're an undereducated southern racist!" Let me know how that works for 'em.

[JB]

"many are older (44 percent were over the age of 60 compared to just 18 percent under the age of 40)"

Will white geezers be the new security/soccer moms?

[hb]

Florida electrol college, Honda will redistrict Denver and sell our votes off to the UN abolishing electoral college?

Florida Crist VP because of the mad dems? The vote? Rommey is from Mass like the Kings and Queens who pass around Congressional seats and stop term limits by electing family when their done. It's not only the money that keeps them in power, but the lack of term limits allowing people to serve. Kennedy was there longer than Castro. I'm supposed to worry about some rich family that bought its seats in Congress, the Presidency and died there? He and his family took too much opportunity from people to serve.

Obama will be worth what the Clintons are worth by the election. 100 million. Bums.

[Dave]

Newsweek is already worried that their messiah might lose, so they're setting up the story line to blame it on "racism" if he does. Interesting how they define it though - if you're opposed to racial discrimination ("affirmative action" in Newspeak), then you're guilty of "racial resentment".

[Rick Ballard]

Both Time and Newsweek are just getting ahead of the curve. Why wait for the November 10th issue to find out why the sorriest candidate since McGovern got his butt kicked? I really hope Newsweek sticks with the race angle. I'm sure they consider it a "teachable moment" but I doubt that the results are going to please them at all. Turning the Presidency into an affirmative action "Must Hire" position will take a few more decades.

[Danube of Thought]

Michael Barone has much to say on the race issue, and as usual it's well worth reading. Link under my name.

[JB]

"Turning the Presidency into an affirmative action "Must Hire" position will take a few more decades."

And by then AI will rule the planet making the presidency something akin to "King For A Day" anyway.

[kim]

'took too much opportunity'. Sometimes, hb, you make a lot of sense.
===========

[RichatUF]

Cecil: "vote for Obama or you're an undereducated southern racist!"

Well BHO does have an emissary, the "Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance" Doudou Diène [SROCFFORRDXARI for short], to hold up that "mirror". I'm sure plenty of racism will be found when they are taking a break from the hookers, blow, and 4 star dinners.

[MikeS]

When I first saw Barack Obama I thought he was cool. I knew he was black. I thought he was a great speaker, and that name could have come straight out of a Star Wars script.

As I learned more about him, I realized that I didn't like him. I disliked some of his ideas and his friends, but I still thought his name was cool.

Now that I know a bit more about the man and his ideas, I find him scary. His foreign policy ideas seem completely disconnected from reality. His ignorance of history and geography are staggering.

Does that make me a racist?

[Gmax]

Gosh why do they need excuses, its a Democrat year. They tell us about every 5 minutes. Oh besides the carp candidate I mean.

[Gmax]

MikeS

You still have a chance to redeem yourself with your betters at Newsweek. Repent I say, or you might have to attend a reeducation camp once the one we have all been waiting for ascends.

[serfer62]

Yes MikeS you're a racist if you don't vote for NObama.

So does that mean the 96% of blacks are racist because they vote for the Organizer?

The sad thing is that MacNasty is the only GOP potential who can lose to this clown...

[MikeS]

Repent I say

I'm willing to repent if I must, but does that mean I have to believe all the insane carp that come out of the mouths of Michelle Obama and "Ride Dirty" Wright?

[kim]

See, these people like Soros, buying exposure, are 'taking too much opportunity' from the polity to assert itself. It is venal for leadership to manifest itself in this manner. He, et al, are mistaken.

Look at Al Gore and his $300,000,000 ad campaign funded by internet and 'anonymous' donors. Generally speaking, 'anonymous' donors don't like to throw money around to no benefit. That'll be some comfort while we're sitting around carping about the cold.
=====================================

[Jane]

That's a good article by Barone, as always. But I'm coming to the conclusion that Obama doesn't believe in anything. He's good a mirroring those around him, to make them feel good, but beyond that, nothing he says seems to be the least bit thought-out. In the debates he would echo Hillary, on the stump he says nothing - well except "freedom from fear" being a right, which I am still stunned by. At any rate, when he is forced to take a stand, it always backfires on him - like the meeting with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Castro thing.

I really think he is just an empty suit.

[bio mom]

Can we call for Obama to get a chest x-ray or cat scan of his lungs and a set of pulmonary function tests since he was a very heavy smoker since his youth?

[JB]

"Direct presidential talks" is a strategic error of catastrophic proportions. McCain supports a League of Democracies and will be able to use it to demolish Obama's meme that the US is too arrogant and needs to talk to scum to show otherwise. The idea that the democracies of the world must carry out a united foreign policy based on shared values is going to be appealing to more voters than "let's indiscriminately give credibility to tyrants."

[Chris]

Shouldn't be close. Then Newsweek and the rest of the MSM can spend twenty years telling us how we were duped into not electing the chosen one. Good times!

[clarice]

Too bad for the writers there but the days when Newsweek and Time could pick our presidents ended with Carter and Clinton I think.

[Jane]

I hope you are right Clarice.

[clarice]

Last poll I saw something like 80% of Americans distrusted the media coverage on Iraq..why wouldn't that spill over to the Presidential contest?

The media was in the tank for Gore and Kerry. Newsweek's chief ,Evan Thomas, said that bias for Kerry was worth 15 % points to Kerry and he still lost. Maybe they have to put more than their thumbs on the scale, and apparently they have. Their asses are on the line this time and I hope I'm right about the public's perception of that.

[JB]

One would think they're trying to guilt whites into voting for Obama. But guilty whites are already in his corner. The emotion they would have to elicit is shame, and that's only possible in a caucus system, not secret ballot.

Yeah, looks like they're setting up the victimhood narrative for the next generation of blue castle dwellers.

[Jgf]

Someone already called the UN.

[Rick Ballard]

I believe the media's ability to peddle low quality ProgJunk™ to be an illusion. They couldn't sell Stevenson, JFK doesn't qualify as a "real" prog (vide tight relationship with J. Edgar, Joe McCarthy), they couldn't sell McGovern, Carter was sold as a centrist (as was Clinton), they couldn't sell Mondale, they couldn't sell Dukakis, they couldn't sell Gore and they couldn't sell Kerry.

The only way that Evan Thomas' statement could be true is if 15% = "warm bucket of spit". 'Cause that's the "true value" of Time and Newsweek (and the NYT - ask the shareholders).

I don't deny their ability to create a negative impression but that's not exactly how a "sale" is made.

[Foo Bar]

then they should ask President John Edwards whether a smooth talking white guy with no resume can win the Democratic nomination and the White House

It would be much more appropriate to ask whether a white guy like Edwards could have won the nomination if he had opposed the Iraq war from the start, as Obama did. As it was, Iowa went for Obama over Edwards, 38% to 30%. If Edwards had been a vocal opponent of the invasion before it happened, that might well have made the difference.

In the Democratic primary field, nobody other than Obama and 2 guys with no chance (Kucinich and Gravel) opposed the war from the start. That makes it highly debatable to conclude that he would not have won if he were white. To suggest as much without even addressing the distinctive edge that Obama got from his opposition to the invasion is quite an oversight.

[PeterUK]

"When I first saw Barack Obama I thought he was cool. I knew he was black. I thought he was a great speaker, and that name could have come straight out of a Star Wars script."

I could never bring myself to vote for Obama,half white is simply too much white.

[clarice]

Rick ,what a rich description of the electoral power of the Fourth Estate. Of course tarring honest people's reputations and interfering with the proper conduct of wars is something they are far better at. Perhaps if they stuck to what they're good at, and left it at that.

[MikeS]

I could never bring myself to vote for Obama,half white is simply too much white.

What if Obama was to pick up some much needed 'gravitas' from his VP pick? I'm thinking of someone like Cindy Sheehan.

[RichatUF]

5 more months of stories like this...

[PeterUK]

"I'm thinking of someone like Cindy Sheehan."

Sorry,she is just too too.

[Danube of Thought]

"It would be much more appropriate to ask whether a white guy like Edwards could have won the nomination if he had opposed the Iraq war from the start, as Obama did."

Actually, Obama merely opposed it before he didn't know whether he opposed it or not. Apart from the fact that opposing the war as an Illinois state legislator is about as courageous and insightful as doing so as a member of the Boulder City Council, there's this historical inconvenience:

"In a recent interview, [Obama] declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time. 'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'WHAT WOULD I HAVE DONE? I DON'T KNOW.' What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made'" (New York Times, 26 July, 2004).

John Edwards had zero chance--zero--of getting the nomination regardless of his stance on the AUMF. And we will never know whether Obama would have opposed or supported it had he been a Senator at the time.

Of course, his story may change...

[Danube of Thought]

It seems to me that a truly un-debatable insight into Obama's judgment on the war in Iraq can be divined from his more recent behavior, when he was actually in the US Senate.

No one can deny that, had the nation taken the course urged by Obama twelve or eighteen months ago, the US would have been seen by the entire planet, and particularly including the Muslim world, to have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq. Having rejected his unsound and immature advice, the nation is now moving closer to victory--and to a monumental defeat for Al Qaeda--with each passing day.

We'll hear more of this between now and November, rest assured.

[ben]

Newsweek poll has Obamamessiah 46 McCain 46...McCain must be ahead by at least 10 pts...

[cathyf]

It took me all the way to page 18 of the 20-page pdf:

SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED VOTERS SUBGROUPS:

1,205 Registered voters (plus or minus 3.5)

345 Republicans (plus or minus 6)

419 Democrats (plus or minus 6)

414 Independents (plus or minus 6)

496 White Dem/Lean Dem (plus or minus 5)

139 High RR Index1 (plus or minus 10)

357 Not High RR Index (plus or minus 6)

So, they only asked the RR-index-eliciting questions of white democrats or democrat leaners (496 of their 1205 person sample.) And the high RR index dem population only turned out to be 139 members of the sample (11.5% of their sample.) Does that mean that when they asked RR-index questions of republicans, they found that there were very few republicans who had high levels of racial resentment? Or did they find that republicans with high levels of racial resentment were not any less likely to vote for Obama than the republicans who were not racially resentful? Maybe both?

With the racially resentful on the lunatic fringe, why should Obama care that he doesn't draw quite as successfully from them? I mean, what I found most striking is that being racist didn't really decrease a democrat's probablity of voting for Obama by very much.

[Foo Bar]

Apart from the fact that opposing the war as an Illinois state legislator is about as courageous and insightful as doing so as a member of the Boulder City Council

He had already formed a campaign committee for his '04 Senate run, so his position on the foremost foreign policy question at the time mattered a great deal.

John Edwards had zero chance--zero--of getting the nomination regardless of his stance on the AUMF

Well, now that you've asserted this without any supporting argumentation, I'm convinced!

[JB]

Ras daily tracker has Obama at 33% VERY UNFAVORABLE (to McCain's 23%).

I'm no poll expert, but that would seem to be bad news for Barry. This is before the September campaign.

[narciso]

Even Fareed Zakaria, admits the politically incorrect reality of the rightness of the Iraq/Afghanistan/Gitmo/TSP program
:href*<http://www.newsweek.com/id/138508?from=rss> Keep it under your hat, Fareed.

[JB]

"When I first saw Barack Obama I thought he was cool. I knew he was black. I thought he was a great speaker, and that name could have come straight out of a Star Wars script."

He's something from that carpy Matrix sequel with the Cornell West cameo.

Barack is being marketed to the Matrix demographic - 25 and under.

[Schornick]

Foo Bar:

Too bad Obama did not get right of Wright before he opposed the war.

It says a lot about Democrats that they are more concerned about a candidate who supported removing a mass murdering dictator from power than a candidate who sat there and listened to that hate mongering bigot rant and rave for a couple of decades.

[clarice]

cathy, No one else seems to have bothered to probe the survey as far as you have. It would be a great stand along blog if you care to submit it to AT,

[clarice]

**stand alonE****

[bad]

Irony and hilarity in one fell swoop:

The Wisdom in Talking, Senator John Kerry- Washington Post

[Danube of Thought]

Obama's position on the "foremost foreign policy issue of his time" as of 2004 was one of uncertainty as to what he would have done had he had the authority to do anything.

What sort of argumentation would you prefer on the matter of Edwards, other than that he lost badly? To imagine what would have happened to him had he opposed the AUMF is about as fruitful as imagining what would have happened to him if he were black. He lost, and lost horribly, and he's done.

I fail to see why, apart from his blackness, Barack Obama is any more plausible a candidate than Dennis Kucinich. Dennis certainly has more experience in the congress and in executive authority. And while he does see the occasional flying saucer, Obama doesn't see racism in Reverend Wright.

The known racist Geraldine Ferraro had it precisely right: the only reason Obama is where he is is that he is black. And as the known racist Shelby Steele puts it, Obama offers absolution from past racial sins for those who vote for him. There are millions of teenage yokels who buy that crap, but it won't avail him in the fall against an actual person.

[PeterUK]

The stance of Obama,wide or otherwise,can be judged by the fact that Iran was paying Iraqis the kill British soldiers no doubt Americans too.

[clarice]

bad, is that really you, sweetheart. If so, I hope you are well.

[Ann]

Karl Rove is interviewed by Lisa DePaulo in the May issue of GQ.

An interesting tidbit:

Karl Rove tells how he got to know Obama because they have a mutual friend, Ken Mehlman, who was his law-school classmate at Harvard. "And so as a result, whenever in the White House, I've gotten to see him, and we sort of would hang around and chitchat about things. I'm actually in his book. He wrote that "people like Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Ralph Reed, and Karl Rove say we are a Christian nation." And I did not say that. I confronted him about it. At the White House."

Q: And what did he say?

"Well, first he denied that I was in the book! And then he denied that it said that I said that it was a Christian nation. And then when I pulled out the thing (he had a copy of the offensive page with him) and showed it to him, he sort of blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. And I thought, That's who he is. I mean, look, he may claim that he's for a different kind of politics, but that was a cheap shot. And I'm not certain if any of the four said it either. But it was like, you know, Let's just strap it in there and see if it goes someplace."

[Foo Bar]

To imagine what would have happened to him had he opposed the AUMF is about as fruitful as imagining what would have happened to him if he were black

Imagining what would have happened to him if he were black is essentially what TM is doing in his post. He's suggesting that Edwards and Obama are similar in that they're both smooth talkers with "no resume" and suggesting that the difference in outcomes can be explained by Obama being black and Edwards being white. So musing about how Edwards would have done had his AUMF vote been different is as legitimate as what TM is doing in his post.

I don't concede your point that Obama doesn't deserve credit for early war opposition just because he acknowledged the possibility that some of the intelligence might have changed his mind. Even if that point were true, though, it's not relevant to the question of whether Obama's success is because he is black or because of (at a minimum) the perception of his longstanding Iraq opposition. Even if you think Obama has hoodwinked primary voters into believing that he deserves credit for war opposition that he doesn't actually deserve, it is nonetheless the case that he is perceived by many to deserve that credit. The existence of that perception amongst voters provides a compelling explanation for his success in the primary that does not depend on his race. A vast majority of Democrats believe the invasion was a mistake.

Kucinich's presidential platform had several positions that were far more extreme than Obama's, including creating a "Department of Peace", ending the war on drugs, immediate withdrawal from the WTO, and legalizing same sex marriage.

[ParseThis]

Ix-nay on the ace-ray, Foo Bar. It's a losing issue for us; no matter how much smoke we blow about how it's not Obama's race that's gotten him the nomination, these guys can always point out that he's consistently pulling 90% of the black vote.

We look like fools by trying to argue that he's getting that 90% because of some "I don't know" stance on Iraq from years ago when he was still just an Illinois state politician.

[kim]

The Democrat often gets 90% of the black vote anyway, so what does race have to do with it?
=================

[Foo Bar]

these guys can always point out that he's consistently pulling 90% of the black vote.

Sure, but getting 90% of the black vote doesn't clinch you the nomination by itself. TM's point was that Edwards is like Obama except that he's white, and therefore Edwards lost. Edwards ran a reasonably close second to Obama in Iowa despite his AUMF vote. How can anybody be so sure that things would not have been different if Edwards had voted against the AUMF?

I, of course, cannot claim to have "proven" that Obama would have won if he were white. Nonetheless, those that are arguing that he only won because he was black are not justified in being so sure, either, given Obama's unique status as a plausible candidate who opposed the war at the start. They would have a stronger case if Obama had defeated at least one white candidate with any kind of reasonable chance at the nomination who had opposed the war from the beginning. Absent the existence of any such candidate, however, it's very hard to say.

some "I don't know" stance on Iraq from years ago

It wasn't some "I don't know" stance. It was fervent opposition in 2002 based on the information he had at the time. He didn't subsequently say that he would have voted for the war now that he knew what the intelligence community was telling those in the Senate. He merely had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it was possible that there existed some piece of intelligence that could, theoretically, have changed his mind.

[kim]

Ah, FB, you noticed that he tiptoed very carefully around intelligence issues. He was painting himself in a corner and saw it in time.
=========================

[JB]

Didn't Barry say he would attack Pakistan?
Didn't seem to hurt him. Is that the war supported by Democrats who believe OIF was a mistake?

[JB]

"It was fervent opposition in 2002 based on the information he had at the time."

Obama holds a lot of "fervent" opinions on issues of which he knows little, no doubt.

[Jim Miller]

Clarice - Later in 2004, Evan Thomas lowered his estimate of the media influence to 5 percent.

FWIW, if you add 5 percent to Bush's share of the vote, you get just about what the economic models predicted he should get.

The leftists who run most of our news organizations are going to try even harder to persuade the voters this year. Maybe too hard, I suspect. I think there is a real possibility of some backlash against them.

[clarice]

I hope you're right,Jim.

[ParseThis]

Foo Bar, there is no white candidate that has pulled 90% of the black vote in a heavily-contested primary, nor is there one that ever would.

And someone already found and cited Obama's very literal "I don't know" stance just a few comments back, so unless you plan on convincing everyone that Time just made up that part of the interview, that "fervent opposition" argument is a lost cause.

Really, you're doing more harm than good by harping on all of these weak points. It's almost as if you're making these stupid, easily-countered arguments just to make Obama look bad.

[Cecil Turner]

He merely had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it was possible that there existed some piece of intelligence . . .

Resulting in a near perfect straddle of the issue he didn't even have to vote on. Yep, that's a profile in courage all right. Then again, he's black. (But as we all know, that has nothing to do with anything--unless you vote against him--in which case you're a racist, undereducated . . .)

[Danube of Thought]

"He merely had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it was possible that there existed some piece of intelligence that could, theoretically, have changed his mind."

That isn't what he said. He said "I don't know what I would have done."

How does "intellectual honesty" differ from plain old honesty? And when half the Democratic primary voters in Kentucky and West Virginia say they do not believe he is honest and trustworthy, do they mean he is not intellectually honest and trustworthy, or just plain old not honest and trustworthy?

Kucinich's position on same-sex marriage was just found by the California Supreme Court to be mandated by the state's constitution, so it hardly marks him as somehow beyond the pale. I say Obama is where he is because of his race, and I believe most people know this to be true. To deny it is to appear rather silly, frankly.

[RichatUF]

Well, I for one will give Foo Bar some credit. He comes prepared to debate, marshals the facts and presents rigorous arguments. The rest of the commenters here appear to be satisfied with name-calling, sneering and media blaming. As a JOM regular, I'm nonplussed by this bitter patter and embarrassed for our side.

[Cecil Turner]

He comes prepared to debate, marshals the facts and presents rigorous arguments.

There's nothing rigorous about a claim of intellectual honesty on the war "judgment" front. It was a safe stance, especially with the later qualifications; and in any event the mindreading of motives is perfectly unprovable. Nor is the case provable either way on the black/"judgment" issue. I'd point out there is a lot more commonality in the anti-war stances of the "guys with no chance" and Obama than there is in skin color . . . which suggests race is the bigger factor. But it's just a suggestion.

Short version: there's no there there. TM's assertion is every bit as valid as Foo Bar's. And IMO, the "racial resentment index" is worthy of all the derision that can be heaped upon it.

[JB]

Why didn't Obama hedge his opinion on Iraq in 2002 as opposed to after deciding to run for president? Wouldn't that have been "intellectually honest"?

[Danube of Thought]

"He comes prepared to debate, marshals the facts and presents rigorous arguments."

If he has presented any facts or argument, rigorous or otherwise, in support of the notion that John Edwards might have been the nominee if he had opposed the AUMF, I missed it.

[MarkO]

Ron Rosenbaum, a sometimes interesting writer, has floated the idea that there is “good”
racism when one is racist in favor of Obama. His article in Slate has the title, “IT’S NOT WRONG TO FAVOR OBAMA BECAUSE OF RACE.”

This is a losing argument, not just in this election, but in the advancement of post-racial politics (which apparently are NOT coming to a booth near you). Hillary has been unsuccessfully trying to get this concept in the minds of Americans, but when an Obama supporter advances it, we can see a shift in the campaign.
He’s no longer the better candidate, the less divisive candidate, the unifying candidate. He’s the blacker candidate. Our collective guilt over the actions of someone else, more than one hundred years ago, should motivate us to elevate Obama to the most powerful position on earth.
Thanks to this silly tripe, were he to win, he would be seen as the disabled candidate who was lifted into his spot mostly because of his race. Come to think of it, he just might be comfortable with that.
I’m not. I’m so old fashioned that I want to vote for someone qualified to be President–not just colorful enough.

[Tom Maguire]

It would be much more appropriate to ask whether a white guy like Edwards could have won the nomination if he had opposed the Iraq war from the start, as Obama did...

...To suggest as much without even addressing the distinctive edge that Obama got from his opposition to the invasion is quite an oversight.

Hmm, I was thinking of Edwards' non-success in 2004, but if he had been Simon-pure on the war back then, maybe he could have beaten Kerry.

As to Obama's heroic formation of a Senate committee, he was awaiting the decision of Carol Mosely Braun to enter the race or not; Ms. Braun was anti-war, so my inference is that for a black candidate in a crowded primary, anti-war was an acceptable road.

That is not to question Obama's sincerity, BTW - I am sure he *was* anti-war, just as Kerry was. I just don't give him any courage points for voting like nearly every other black legislator and in a way that would not hurt him in a state-wide primary (and would probably have been OK in the Senate race, if he made it that far - as of Sept 2002, it was very easy to say that the case had not been made).

I fail to see why, apart from his blackness, Barack Obama is any more plausible a candidate than Dennis Kucinich.

I basically agree - Obama is a better speaker and a fresher face than Dennis, but would he be sweeping the board with black voters if he were white, or would the black vote have been divided amongst a bunch of pale-faces?

While checking something else I read an article from 1992 noting that Tsongas had the educated white suburban vote but was nowhere with working class whites and with blacks, two groups with whom Clinton connected. That was just one reminder of the very astute analysis I ought to dig up which recapped every Dem nominating race as juggling the 3 groups just mentioned. Obama is the first guy with appeal to both eggheads and blacks, which makes him a winner.

From Foo Bar:

Imagining what would have happened to [Edwards] if he were black is essentially what TM is doing in his post. He's suggesting that Edwards and Obama are similar in that they're both smooth talkers with "no resume" and suggesting that the difference in outcomes can be explained by Obama being black and Edwards being white.

Well, suppose John Edwards, son of a mill worker, first guy in family to go to college, successful lawyer, US Senator, were black. How would he have done in 2004, and would Obama have even entered the race in 2008? (Seems like that ecological niche can't support two people). A hint - Edwards led the DailyKos online polls for months, as a mere white guy. If Edwards were black there would be no Obama and we would be debating whether Edwards' success was due to his race.

From ParseThis:

We look like fools by trying to argue that he's getting that 90% because of some "I don't know" stance on Iraq from years ago when he was still just an Illinois state politician.

Well, not fools - How about persistent advocates for an unconvincing position?

Nonetheless, those that are arguing that he only won because he was black are not justified in being so sure, either, given Obama's unique status as a plausible candidate who opposed the war at the start.

Well, far be it from me to mind-read Dem primary voters but... if Obama is really racking up majorities based on what he said in 2002 rather than what he proposes to do in 2009, that is scary. And most exit polls have the economy as more important than the war.

To be fair, however, in his 2004 interview at he Dem convention, he was looking at a mousetrap - the Times was hoping for a nice headline of "Great Black Hope Of Dem Party Splits With Kerry On Iraq War", and he was trying to dance away from that, which was loyal enough.

Well, questions that strike me as easy:

1. If Obama were white, would he have been in the papers and gotten a 1995 book deal for being the first black head of the Harvard Law Review? And what the heck would "Dreams From My Father" have been about?

2. If Obama were white, would he have been the keynote speaker at the 2004 Dem convention?

If Obama were white, and somehow jockeyed himself into the US Senate from Illinois, I will grant that his anti-war stance might have separated him from Edwards in Iowa 2008 and provided the winning margin. But...

3. If Obama were white, would he have won South Carolina, which followed his near-miss in New Hampshire? Why? Hillary was polling well among blacks even in Nov/Dec (IIRC), and Bill was the first black President.

My guess - Hillary loses Iowa (after dilly-dallying about whether to even contest it), wins New Hampshire, wins South Carolina, wins Super Tuesday (which she did anyway) and marches to glory.

Maybe a white, anti-war Obama electrifies the caucus states so he has that string of victories before Super Tuesday, but his wins would be smaller, Hillary's wins would be bigger (because she would be getting a plurality of black votes in a crowded white-only field), and she would lead the delegate count handily.

[Elliott]

What if Emil Jones, Jr. hadn't smiled upon Obama?

[Danube of Thought]

It's worth noting that more Democratic primary voters cast votes for the two candidates who voted for the war (Clinton and Edwards) than for the one who gave a speech against it. Being against the war from the start certainly doesn't seem to be determinative, even with that bunch.

[Foo Bar]

if Obama is really racking up majorities based on what he said in 2002 rather than what he proposes to do in 2009, that is scary

You make this point over and over again, and it doesn't make any sense to me. Evaluating a candidate always involves scrutinizing a combination of the candidate's record and the candidate's proposed plans for the future. Obama's Iraq war position is an important part of his record. You could just as easily make your remark in response to McCain claiming vindication for his support for the surge, or any other part of McCain's record, for that matter.

[kim]

Remember, he's mostly only racking up majorities in caucuses, where peaceniks bully.
=======================

[Danube of Thought]

"Obama's Iraq war position is an important part of his record."

It certainly is. A year ago he was opposed to the surge, and wanted to begin withdrawing troops immediately. No one can have the slightest doubt what a disastrously wrong-headed position that was.
He would have brought on a catastrophic defeat and prevented what is now an impending, vitally important victory.

That reckless stance, in and of itself, makes him unfit for the office.

[Danube of Thought]

"I have to say that it is a chilling prospect, the notion that we would send tens of thousands of additional American young men and women to compound the tragic mistake that has already been made over the last four years.

"… In the face of this quagmire, the notion that we would put tens of thousands more young Americans in harm's way without changing our fundamental strategy, a strategy that's failed by almost every imaginable count , makes absolutely no sense. In escalating the war with a so-called surge of troops, the president would be overriding the express concerns of Generals on the ground, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the American people."

--B.H. Obama, January 5, 2007

[Cecil Turner]

Obama's Iraq war position is an important part of his record.

That's a matter of opinion. However, if you search that Newsweek article for the word "Iraq," you'll get a "text not found" message. Berating Tom for failing to include Iraq in an analysis about race seems a bit odd (though not odder than Newsweek's implied claim that Barry's blackness was a net negative).

[Danube of Thought]

June 4, 2007:

"In the second Democratic debate, Obama had this to say about the fact that he voted against funding the troops for the surge.

"MR. BLITZER: Senator Obama, you did the same thing. Since you came in to the Senate you voted for the funding for the troops for this war until now. What's your answer?

"SEN. OBAMA: Wolf, look, everybody supports the troops and everybody knows that. To some degree, this was a vote that had to do with how we feel about a continuation of a plan that has not worked. The president has now announced, just the other day he said that this was like Korea. Keep in mind we've been there six decades in the Korean peninsula, and the best way for us to support the troops is to ensure that we are not continuing to try to impose a military solution on what is essentially a political problem in Iraq. And that's why I put forward a bill that would begin a phased redeployment and have all our troops out by March 31st of next year."

Read that again: Barack Obama not only voted against funding the troop surge, he introduced legislation that, had it become law, would have had every last US soldier out of Iraq two months ago.

Let's have some adult commentary on the likely result of there having been no surge, and instead a US withdrawal.

[MikeS]

"... be overriding the express concerns of Generals on the ground, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group"

No only was his judgment wrong (again), but he misrepresented the position of the Iraq Study Group report which recommended a surge. That recommendation preceded all the numbered recommendations.

[MayBee]

Let's have some adult commentary on the likely result of there having been no surge, and instead a US withdrawal.

That's the beauty of being a critic of a policy. You never have to answer for what would have happened had someone listened to you, but you can continue to criticize any mistakes that come out of the policy followed. It's a win win.

I'm still waiting for the adult commentary on what might have happened had there not been an OIF.

[clarice]

You know--there's an advantage to being hooked on this place..the discussion has taken a really interesting turn. We ought to collect O's most preposterous utterences under the title If Only We'd Listened to Barack....

It would be a hoot.

[Foo Bar]

That's a matter of opinion. However, if you search that Newsweek article for the word "Iraq," you'll get a "text not found" message. Berating Tom for failing to include Iraq in an analysis about race seems a bit odd.

One of the implications of TM's post, written in response to the Newsweek article, is that Obama won largely because he was black. It is legitimate to question how sure we can be about that claim by pointing to another important attribute of Obama that distinguished him from all the other plausible candidates and contributed to his victory, regardless of whether that attribute is mentioned in the Newsweek article.

[Cecil Turner]

That's the beauty of being a critic of a policy.

Especially when your criticism has no practical effect . . . like in a wannabe congresscritter parroting his predecessor's position without having to defend an unpopular vote. If "anti-war" were the metric, seems to me Kucinich (who actually voted against the war, and subsequent funding bills, unlike B_O) would be the obvious choice. The fact that he isn't suggests it's not a litmus test. (And, perhaps, that the appearance of antiwar sentiment is more important than the actuality.)

One of the implications of TM's post, written in response to the Newsweek article, is that Obama won largely because he was black.

Yeah, and considering the Newsweek article suggests he's having trouble because he's black, that seems to me a fairly cogent point. Your desire to examine all other factors appears to me to have the effect (mainly) of obscuring the subject: is Barack's blackness a net positive or negative? I'd suggest the former. If you actually believe it's the latter, I'd welcome a straightforward claim to that effect. (And I'll allow we're not going to be able to prove it one way or the other, here.)

[MikeS]

Question: Is it Barack's race that inspires 90% of all black voters to support him or is it more likely that those voters are supporting Barack because he claims that the was against the war from the outset?

I'm going with Geraldine's opinion on that.

[Danube of Thought]

I don't have any quarrel at all with black Americans supporting Obama for no reason other than that he is black. (Actually, they might very well support in almost the same proportion merely because he is a Democrat.) Given the totality of African-American history, it would be astonishing if they did not do so. I don't see that as any more alarming than Irish Catholic Americans being overwhelmingly for Kennedy, and if Giuliani were the nominee I would expect Italian-Americans to go for him overwhelmingly. There is nothing particularly sinister about genuine ethnic pride.

What does trouble me is the Shelby Steele notion of whites implicitly being offered the "bargain" of assuaging their guilt, and proving their moral worth, by voting for Obama because he is black. That strikes me as a bit perverse, and very troubling as the basis for a presidential vote.

But let's hear some more about Obama's position on the central national security issue of his entire tenure in the Senate: troop surge vs. withdrawal. It was by far the biggest judgment call he has confronted, and he got it dead, drastically wrong.

[Elliott]

I said this of Obama two and a half weeks ago:

But the man truly has no sense of irony. In one breath, he envisions and denounces the devious and distracting stratagems sure to be employed by "the other side" and promises his campaign will never descend to this level. In the next, he mischaracterizes McCain's statement on the economy.

Here's what Mark Halperin decides to highlight from Obama's commencement speech at Wesleyan:

“No one is forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. But I hope you don’t.”

This from the same guy whose urge to secure the house he coveted trumped his ever so sagacious judgment. "Boneheaded mistake" anyone?

Also on Halperin's site there is a link to the NYT's story* on the lobbying histories of McCain's campaign manager and associates.

Meanwhile, at Hot Air, the Captain directs our attention to a Newsweek report*:

After spending most of the month trying to paint John McCain as having a lobbyist problem, Barack Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod may have been hoist by his own petard. His consulting firm turns out to do lobbying as well, and in some shady ways:

When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a “California-style energy crisis” if the rate increase wasn’t approved—but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. “It’s corporate money trying to hoodwink the public,” the state’s Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then—but may soon get more scrutiny—is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama.

I would say that many elements of the Obama message are not, uh, well suited to the candidate. But, as we've seen from Deval Patrick, the message of Axelrod's clients comes right off the rack.
________________
*Links omitted to appease Typepad.

[glasater]

It is comments like this one from HOTAIR --Elliott--that make me very nervous regarding the election outcome in November.

[Jane]

Glasater,

I'm buoyed by the fact that 'normal' people are not taken in by Obama. There are lots of reason they don't like him. Some fell off the wagon with Reverend Wright, some with the "bitter clinging" comment, some with Ayers, some with the Iran ignorance. I'd be a lot more worried if there was only one thing to chose from.

The "elite", or those who think they are elite are going to vote for Obama. Everyone else, maybe not.

[Danube of Thought]

Bear in mind that the turnout percentage for these Dem primaries is not the highest in history, it's the second-highest. The highest was in 1972, as the Dems prepared for the McGovern coronation.

Also remind yourself that about half of the people who will vote in November aren't paying any attention at all right now, and have very little idea who Barack Obama is. As they learn about him in the final eight weeks before election day, they are not going to fall in love.

[glasater]

Thank you Jane and DOT for your encouraging remarks.

You and others who comment here certainly help keep one's spirits up.

I cannot believe when I hear from someone whom I considered to be a somewhat reasonable D--as former Senator Bill Bradley seemed to be--endorsing BHO.
The only conclusion I can come to is that they have lost their minds.

[Jane]

It's party over country. I can actually understand the loyalty, what I can't understand if the stupidity.

[Rick Ballard]

Glasater,

I really need to hear a convincing rationale as to why Obama is stronger than Kerry (or McCain substantially weaker than Bush) prior to thinking about worrying. BHO's key demographic (the prog/black block) hasn't grown since 2004 and the anticipated black turnout numbers in OH and FL aren't sufficient to overcome the antipathy that an affirmative action candidate generates among those most likely to be carrying resentment about affirmative action - that key <$50K group.

If BHO had any history whatsoever of overcoming any obstacle there might be some justification for considering Shelby Steele's thesis concerning a white "guilt" vote. That just ain't gonna happen with BHO. He may have snuck around or slithered under a few obstacles but he's never "overcome" anything in his very lackluster life.

I don't doubt the fervent nature of some of his supporters but I remember the same schmucks pumping the same carp about Kerry.

[Danube of Thought]

There was lots of swooning over JFK, and he didn't get 50% of the vote against a hugely unlikeable opponent. McGovern dropped 49 states. Dukakis dropped 40. The only Dem to get a majority of the popular vote since 1964 was Jimmy Carter, with 50.1% in the wake of Watergate. And the disillusionment with that befuddled simpleton was immediate and irreversible.

[bgates]

I don't have any quarrel at all with black Americans supporting Obama for no reason other than that he is black.
I do. The people who do that are going to assume everyone else is casting their vote on the same basis, and they're going to interpret Obama's crushing defeat as a rejection of the black community in America (and you can be sure they'll be able to point to anecdotes in Newsweek and on CBS to back that up).

That doesn't change the fact that Obama deserves to lose based on his stated preference to abandoned the best-governed independent Arab nation in the history of the world to mafias and psychopaths supposedly because of his concern for the lives of any American servicemen who have not yet been killed by his pals in the Weathermen and Hamas.

[ben]

Add me to those that are unimpressed by the Obamamessiah's performance to date. Democratic primary voters are generally to the left of Democrats overall, all the Obamabots came out and voted, turnouts were big, etc. But in the end even the Annointed One got less than 50% of the fired-up, dedicated, crazed, excited and breathless Dem primary voters in what has been essentially a "two man" race. In essence, even among the pool of voters most receptive to his message he only performed marginally. Show him up 10 points after Labor Day and I will panic then.

[glasater]

Show him up 10 points after Labor Day and I will panic then

Me too Ben.

Nixon lost to Kennedy by two tenths of one per cent in 1960 and the controversies were in Illinois and Texas.

[SjP]

Racism vs Racial Resentment? Geraldine Farraro coins new phrase. What do you think?

I invite you to read my most recent post on this subject at: http://sojournersplace.blogspot.com/2008/05/not-racism-but-racial-resentment.html

SjP