George Will likes Obama, dislikes Huck, Edwards, Clinton

[lord of the mark]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403561.html

[Dinner]

George Will is generally a baboon gibbering the Republican party line no matter how loathsome that line may be. I can only guess that his up talking of Romney and Obama means that Republican insiders want those two men to face off in the fall. Who knows though? Maybe he genuinely is telling us how he feels this time.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Oerdin
George Will is generally a baboon gibbering the Republican party line no matter how loathsome that line may be.

I disagree with both assertions there. Will, whatever his many faults (most of them ideological), is generally quite intelligent; and right now there doesn't seem to be any one "Republican party line."

Instead, the column is vintage Will, who's gotten crankier and crankier about the demise of his particular brand of Tory Republicanism. Will, an unabashed elitist, has always been anti-populist -- so it's no surprise that he disdains Huckabee and Edwards, and respects Obama's intelligence. He's also bright enough to have picked up on the fact that Obama, for all his soaring rhetoric, actually has the most conservative platform among the leading Dems.

[LordShiva]

I won't listen to him unless he changes his name to George Will9.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
He's also bright enough to have picked up on the fact that Obama, for all his soaring rhetoric, actually has the most conservative platform among the leading Dems.

Im wondering how long Obama can be all things to all people. Its looking like he can make it through the primaries, and perhaps he can even make it through the general election (the only decent GOP candidate being McCain, who at 71 is VERY vulnerable on youthfulness and change, not to mention likeability)

But once in office, Obama will have the expectations of large numbers of Dems who voted for him thinking his soft words could sell a liberal agenda as Edwards and Clinton (and Kerry, and Dean, and Dukakis, and Mondale, and so on) couldnt do - all the defered hopes of several decades. And on the other the expectations of independents, moderate Republicans, and even apparently of High Tory Republicans, that he WONT get much more substantive social change passed than Bill Clinton the days of triangulation, that he'll defang class conflict even as suppresses dangerous ex-Trotskite NeoCon idealism, albeit doing so idealistically.

It cant hold together indefinitely. Im not sure oratory and IQ will substitute for experience and street smarts in keeping such an unwieldy coalition together.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It cant hold together indefinitely. Im not sure oratory and IQ will substitute for experience and street smarts in keeping such an unwieldy coalition together.

Yep, this is why I keep thinking of Jimmy Carter, and shuddering. I like the guy, and loved his 2004 keynote address, but (now that Dodd's gone ) I still think Clinton is a better choice at the moment. If he gets more specific, I could be swayed, but he's not there yet.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Obama has always been anti-war as opposed to Hillary who only changed her tune the summer of last year when it became painfully obvious that she had absolutely no chance at the nomination if she didn't.

With no major policy positions differences between them the earlier anti-war stance from Obama makes him the more leftward candidate. His rhetoric is conciliatory but thats not to be confused with centrist rhetoric, Edwards rhetoric is Populist and sounds more leftward but again stated policy doesn't differ radically, Hillary has bee made a bogyman of the right for so long that she is assumed to be the most left wing candidate in the Dem field but her positions do not back this up. Obama consistently wins among Dem's who consider them self "very Liberal".


Prediction Markets and Zogby polls show that Obama already has New Hampshire in the bag the only question will be the margin of victory will it be deceiving or Crushing. I'd put my money on Crushing which I'll define as greater then 11% margin over Hillary, in addition Obama will exceed 42%.

[Ramo]

On domestic policy, the big three are virtually the same. The significant difference are foreign policy and theories of governance. The former has been discussed about plenty (where Obama and Edwards appear to be on the left, Clinton on the right).

Clinton is saying that she's the most familiar with the system, so she could game it the best to make the changes all three candidates want. Edwards is saying that we need a partisan contrast to create the downballot support to make change. Obama is saying that we need to focus on good government and emphasize ideology over party to bring in an electoral majority that can support change.

Of the three, before Iowa I though Edwards had the most compelling argument. But Obama has clearly won it. 239,000 people voted for a Democrat, while half of that number voted for a Republican. 75% of Independents voted for a Democrat, and Obama easily carried this electorate. 57% were new voters, another category that Obama carried. 22% were young voters, a significant improvement over the past. He really did find the holy grail of progressive politics, vastly increased turnout.

It looks like he'll stomp Clinton in NH and SC. She wins delegate-less MI by default. Who knows what'll happen in NV, but it's hard not to see an IA/NH win not give Obama a serious lead. Clinton becomes forced to go with the Giuliani strategy of banking on FL propelling her to 2/5. Her using that strategy makes a lot more sense, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Elok]

I generally ignore Will unless he looks like being entertaining. Did he do something to land himself in trouble, like maybe refer to Obama as a "negro?"

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Obama has always been anti-war as opposed to Hillary who only changed her tune the summer of last year when it became painfully obvious that she had absolutely no chance at the nomination if she didn't.

I have to say, I place no value in Obama's war opposition. I mean, I'm glad he opposed it, but there is nothing in his current Senate behavior that makes me think that, had he been a senator in the run-up to the war, he would have had the cajones to vote against it. Obama is not Russ Feingold; everything about his record makes me think that he would have held his nose and voted for the war resolution (and the PATRIOT ACT), same as Clinton and Edwards and Dodd and Biden and Kerry.

It looks like he'll stomp Clinton in NH and SC. She wins delegate-less MI by default. Who knows what'll happen in NV, but it's hard not to see an IA/NH win not give Obama a serious lead. Clinton becomes forced to go with the Giuliani strategy of banking on FL propelling her to 2/5.

I haven't seen the SC numbers yet, but I'm not surprised. But it looks like she'll win NV, MI, and FL. The lack of seated delegates from MI and FL don't really matter; what matters is the perception of winning, and especially of being able to win battleground states, and she'll have that. Hillary will head into Super Tuesday competative, but hardly sailing toward the coronation she thought she'd have.

The thing that's teh big problem for her right now -- and I've said this in another thread -- is not that Obama's picking up support, but that Edwards is losing it. Edwards has dropped 5 points in NH in the last couple of days; he's headed for a flame-out this Tuesday. If he drops out right after, his supporters and organization will massively defect to Obama, who will have a month to put them in motion for Super Tuesday. That will create real problems for her.

[Ramo]

MI doesn't matter because Obama and Edwards aren't on the ballot. I think Richardson pulled out of the ballot as well. Dodd stayed on, but he's out. I'm not sure how much momentum Clinton gets from beating Kucinich.

I really don't know how there's any basis to say what's going to happen in NV, since there aren't any post-IA polls, much less post-IA/NH polls.

I think if Edwards gets a weak third in NH, he drops out and endorses Obama. In the last debate, he clearly threw his support to Obama. Richardson's also gone after NH, and I'm guessing he endorses Obama (since he threw his second ballot support in IA to Obama).

[Impaler[WrG]]

Rufus that may be true we can't KNOW for sure what would have been done, but I think their is a credible argument for it and in any case all the rest did vote for it.

I think Edwards has already decided he isn't getting the nomination and is already positioning himself to be Obama's VP pick, not that Obama is likely to pick him of course. Edwards will echo Obama's rhetoric and exclusively attack Hillary. This will do nothing to prevent his supporters from realizing his non-viability, if anything it will signal it. The resent NH debate will be the template for the next month of campaigning, Edwards against Hillary, Hillary against Obama, Obama against Hillary.

As Obama has already won NH, the magnitude of the Edwards loss their and in the other primaries that follow could very influential as you predict, if mass defection begins or is triggered by NH results then Obama could gain a solid 10 points from that alone. On the other hand if Edwards keeps hanging on at 20% figures and keeps beating Hillary for second (her invulnerability implodes faster then his un-viability is realized) then we could see very little movement.

SC is probably also in the bag for Obama, it was a perfect tie a month ago at a time when he was more then 10 points behind Clinton in Iowa and NH. Obama could win his first outright majority if Edwards implodes and Blacks who have been fence sitting decide en-mass that he is viable. The only expectation for Clinton will be to win among white voters.

Nationally Clinton is widely thought to have a 20% lead, this is exaggerated by sloppy polling, high-quality polls such as Zogby haver her at half that a month ago and its likely all evaporated already. The Nation as a whole is a dead-heat or at least will be after NH, Clinton will be staring virtual elimination in the face on Super Tuesday. Its widely thought by pundits she will covertly play the race card and call Obama "unelectable" in the next month, the more Primaries preceding that that Obama can win (especially with huge Iowa like turnouts) the more he is insulated from that attack. If Obama can out delegate Hillary on ST then the only thing that could stop him from winning the nomination and most likely the Presidency would be a total meltdown/implosion scandal which I find very unlikely.

[Ramo]

The most similar Senate record to Obama's is probably Dick Durbin, who voted against the war.

[Wezil]

Imran said I should wait until New Hampshire (where's Imran btw?) before saying Hillary is done. Has that changed?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Wezil
Imran said I should wait until New Hampshire (where's Imran btw?) before saying Hillary is done. Has that changed?

Hillary's a far cry from done. She's got money, she's got organization, and she's got more sheer endurance power than any candidate in either party. Her big problem now is that she has to go back to the drawing board on strategy. She expected to have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday. I actually think she'll come out of Super Tuesday ahead of Obama in the overall delegate count, but it won't be over by a long shot.

That means, incidently, that big states that looked like they might have been irrelevent will suddenly matter a great deal. I doubt either Hillary or Obama really has a Texas strategy, or a Pennsylvania strategy, because nobody expected this front-loaded race to carry on into late March or even April.

This really could end up looking just like Mondale-Hart in '84. Grab the popcorn; it's going to be interesting.