I think that the main reason for disappointment at Tuesday's results lies in its being the third time Obama had a chance to close the deal–New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and now Ohio/Texas–and he couldn't do it. It's not that he's been damaged or that he has failed in some way; it's just that he hasn't decisively ended this in the way so many of us hoped he would. So in this particular match we're at the beginning of the fourth quarter and Obama has the equivalent of a two touchdown lead. On Tuesday he was on the ten yard line threatening another score and to put the game away. Clinton was able to hold him off, and she's exhilarated at the success of her goal-line stand, but she's still two touchdowns behind. Not impossible to overcome, but it would require a major breakdown from Obama.
And now we have this long slog to Denver during which Obama will be harassed and sniped at and undermined at every step. I suppose there are ways to look at the positives in that (makes him battle ready for the general, etc.), but I don't think there's any question he and his fans would prefer to have the time off to get ready for the championship round in the fall. He and we are not going to get it.
Why was Obama unable to close the deal? I don't know that it matters to understand it in terms any more complex than that the country divides into those who are interested in moving forward and others who prefer what is familiar and comfortable. At the fringes it might be more complicated, but at the center, that's really the nature of this conflict. It's at the heart of each candidate's message: change vs. experience. Moving forward vs. competent management of the bureaucracy.
As Matt was pointing out in a comment to the previous post, most people–60-70%?– aren't paying close attention. They don't know what's at stake. They've other concerns that are more pressing in their lives, and politics is sports–an entertainment. It's more than that of course, and more than 30% realize it, but people can't be blamed if the entertainment dimension of politics is pretty much the only thing that makes it interesting. Obama is more than an entertainer, but much of his appeal lies in his charisma that makes him very much like entertainers and celebrities in the popular culture.
That's not a knock on him. It's enormously valuable asset for any politician who wants to effect the kind of changes in the political culture that he and his supporters want. He has to have at least the tacit support of the people who are not paying that much attention and who do not know what is at stake. So he needs to be, and I think will be, both a rock star and an effective government executive; only the idiots in the chattering classes think the two are mutually exclusive. It's unusual, not impossible, but the unusual is uncomfortable for a lot of people, especially those who are large stakeholders in the current power and financial establishment.
So unless something happens to settle this thing soon, the Clinton game plan will be to raise as many doubts as possible about Obama. They will exaggerate his vulnerabilities ("As far as I know, he's not a Muslim.") and exploit every little misjudgment like the Rezko business, which could become the new Whitewater if the Obama camp doesn't quickly find a way to parry it effectively. They will try to kill him with a thousand paper cuts. And that's just the way it is. It would have been preferrable to avoid it, but Obama has to show us what he's made of in dealing with this kind of harassment now, because, surely, he will have to deal with it later.
Leave a Reply