Thursday, August 7, 2008

'Electability' returns

Resurrecting an argument from the Democratic primaries, Victor Davis Hanson says that Hillary Clinton would be the more electable candidate:
If the polls are right, a public tired of Republicans is beginning to think an increasingly bothersome Obama would be no better -- and maybe a lot worse. . . .
In a tough year like this, Democrats could probably have defeated Republican John McCain with a flawed, but seasoned candidate like Hillary Clinton. But long-suffering liberals convinced their party to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee -- and thereby they probably will get neither.
This is the real hope of the GOP this year: That liberals have once again demonstrated how smart they are by outsmarting themselves.

UPDATE: The question of whether Hillary is plotting something may answer itself, but the question of whether she should get a convention vote is still open to debate. Would it hurt Obama if her delegates should demonstrate their strength? Or would it hurt Obama worse if he appeared to be suppressing her supporters? Personally, I think Obama has nothing to fear from a roll call that he knows he would win. The imposition of a compulsory consensus makes the undemocratic nature of the process -- with Obama essentially chosen by the "superdelegates" -- too transparent.

1 comment:

  1. Hmm, yes...electability. Now that the persona of celebrity has been exposed on a bulhorn via the McCain campaign and the echoers in the media, we must get to the business at hand and determine, "Do I really want this guy in charge of national security when he changes his policy stance every time he needs to win the approval of a different audience or voting bloc?"
    After the past few weeks of Both Ways Barack and him being on both sides of the same issue...well, I am almost ready to take the Obama in 08' bumper sticker off of my car.

    Back in the days before television, youtube, and practically every other person having a video camera, you could get away with telling audiences differing policy stances. But's 2008!

    Barack, you need to read this, Huey could do this before can't:

    The story seems too good to be true—but people
    who should know swear that it is true. The first time
    that Huey P. Long campaigned in rural, Latin, Catholic
    south Louisiana, the local boss who had him in charge
    said at the beginning of the tour: “Huey, you ought to
    remember one thing in your speeches today. You’re
    from north Louisiana, but now you’re in south
    Louisiana. And we got a lot of Catholic voters down
    here.” “I know,” Huey answered. And throughout the
    day in every small town Long would begin by saying:
    “When I was a boy, I would get up at six o’clock in the
    morning on Sunday, and I would hitch our old horse up
    to the buggy and I would take my Catholic grandparents
    to mass. I would bring them home, and at ten
    o’clock I would hitch the old horse up again, and I
    would take my Baptist grandparents to church.” The
    effect of the anecdote on the audiences was obvious,
    and on the way back to Baton Rouge that night the local
    leader said admiringly: “Why, Huey, you’ve been holding
    out on us. I didn’t know you had any Catholic
    grandparents.” “Don’t be a fool,” replied Huey. “We
    didn’t even have a horse.”