Obama “Effectively” Clears Delegate Hurdle…
…and Clinton will apparently acknowledge it, ending, for all intents and purposes, the drawn-out final stages of the Democratic race and closing the books on the Clinton era, perhaps, as well. Clinton is still maneuvering for VP. The AP’s tally is the one that ‘effectively’ put Obama over the top, though Obama’s own count has him lacking 10 delegates (a total that he will surely secure from today’s primaries).
It’s got to be a bitter pill to swallow for Hillary…for once, I will actually try to catch her remarks tonight to confirm the news accounts and see if she sheds any further light on when she might ‘officially’ end her run, which presumably will carry on for a short time in name only, as campaign staffers are off the payroll and looking for new work…
UPDATE 8:19 p.m.: It’s done…South Dakota will go down as the state that officially put him over the top…
UPDATE 9:20 p.m.: I’ve said little about the victor tonight, so let’s congratulate Senator Obama on a major upset, a great campaign, and a nomination of obvious historical significance…
Tonights victory speech by Obama brought to mind Martin Luther King’s “Free at Last” speech. Obama faces a similar threat of assination in this country throughout the coming election. Both Huckaby’s joke and Clinton’s allusion to Kenndy’s assination clearly expose the possibility of such an occurrence that would wound the country irreparably.
Umm… we had something called a Civil War that was supposed to wound the country irreparably, and almost 150 years later, we’re still together. Anyway…
That was a really weird speech from Hillary. Her people haven’t yet figured out that she’s lost.
What a night last night was. It’s amazing to think that, for the first time in my life, we might actually get one of these things right.
Now, where’s Chris to issue the next incredibly and obviously incorrect election prediction?
Would it be paranoid to note that Hillary hasn’t conceded the race yet, and wonder what she has left up her sleeve?
“It’s amazing to think that, for the first time in my life, we might actually get one of these things right.”
I suppose you would be proud of your country for the first time. I’m sorry, but your comment is juvenile and shallow. We elect who we elect, and the country moves on. There have been Presidents with whom I was not thrilled, but, in general, the country as a whole has moved forward and onward.
Ryan, I haven’t missed a prediction yet, so the next would be the first.
I still say the number is 2210, and that this battle won’t be over until Obama reaches it or Hillary withdraws. Nothing has happened to change my mind on that and neither event has happened.
I’m withholding odds projections for a couple days. I want to see what kind of statements the Hillary campaign makes over the next few days.
DBrooks: Funny, but inaccurate. I am proud of the presidential choice my country is (on the verge of) making for the first time. “One of these things” refers quite explicitly to presidential elections. My country gets a lot of other things right all the time. The vast majority of people who live in my country get the vast majority of their day-to-day decisions almost shockingly right, which is why we keep moving forward and onward so very well. It’s my government that has been a disastrous failure, and I think the American people have done a less than stellar job at picking the people to serve in it. (Or, rather, half of them have. About 50% still voted for the unexciting but better than the alternative Gore and Kerry.)
Ryan-as you said “for the first time in my life,” and you now refer only to Gore and Kerry, I must assume you are between 8 and 11 years old–which explains a lot about your commentary.
This is the level of discourse we’re having now?
*sigh* Fine. The American people probably chose as well as they could have in 1996, I’m still undecided on 1988 and 1992, and they missed the boat rather shockingly in 1980 and 1984. I realize I will get no traction out of criticizing Reagan on a conservative blog, but there have been few forces in American politics more pernicious than the Reagan coalition. Its philosophy has left our politics morally and intellectually bankrupt. Insofar as Obama is a repudiation of that legacy, I find no shame in saying that he is the first legitimately good presidential candidate of my lifetime. I take pride in my country for a great many reasons, and I proud “for the first time in my life” that we may have a president worthy of this great nation.
*Sigh*, indeed. I know not why I pursue this, but what exactly do you find in Obama’s political history that you feel(and I choose that word carefully)potentially makes him ” a president worthy of this great nation.” Name a particular political accomplishment that you feel entitles him to the obvious high regard you hold for him.
Defeating the Clinton machine.
Heck. Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp nearly did that, and I don’t see them as Presidential material.
Heh. Well-played.
That said, why does it have to be a political accomplishment? To take an extreme example (Obama is clearly not Lincoln), what were Lincoln’s major political achievements before becoming President? The great virtue of Lincoln wasn’t that he had “experience” or because he was “ready to lead on day one” or any of that; it was that he was fundamentally right about the most important moral issue of his day.
To draw a seriously imperfect parallel, Obama was right about the Iraq War. He is skeptical (though I’ll admit not skeptical enough) of US hegemony and the lunatic foreign policy we engage in to preserve it. He refuses to be boxed into Reagan-era categories (e.g., Democrats are weak on defense, saber-rattling belligerence is synonymous with toughness, America’s foreign rivals are also her enemies, etc) and rejects the notion that liberalism somehow reflects an insufficient love of country. As conservatives pointed out in the 90s, being President is about character. That doesn’t mean merely that you’re faithful to your wife, although it also means that. The job is far more about judgment than it is about experience. Obama has given me sufficient reason to trust his judgment.
This is akin to debating with my reflection in the mirror that those white hairs don’t really exist. To me, it seems befuddling that you are so convinced of Obama’s positives that you consider him a singular candidate “worthy” of the country, when I see an relatively inexperienced man with an appealing surface quality, who has, at times, exhibited potential. I don’t think any of us know anywhere enough about him to make any substantive appraisals, and I would personally prefer a candidate who had a longer personal and professional history by which we could judge his/her qualities. For you to elevate him to such lofty heights–comparing him to Lincoln, for instance, says more about you, your hopes, and your emotions than it does about Obama. There is nothing wrong with having high hopes for a potential President, as long as you don’t let those hopes obscure the reality of the human beneath those hopes.
Well, that sort of thing matters to me. The simple fact is that Obama is capable of making me have high hopes. From what I have seen of him, he’s a person from whom I get the sense that he will ennoble the office rather than simply fill it. There are policy reasons I think this – his judgment on Iraq, his statements about foreign policy, his defense of a rebirth of liberalism – and there are emotional/instinctual reasons – his rhetorical skill, his work as an organizer, his academic background, his intellectual approach to problem-solving. My hopes may end up dashed; I’ll grant you that. But Obama seems to me (and “seems” is all we have, I’ll concede) a more decent, thoughtful, engaged presidential candidate than any I have yet seen.
Also, if I sound a bit like Andrew Sullivan, I guess I can live with that. Unlike Andrew, however, I’m not pretending Obama is a new kind of conservative. He isn’t, and that’s one of the things I like about him.
“his judgment on Iraq”
By that you mean the judgment that it would be politically expedient to run for elected office in the district where Louis Farrakahn resides (and holds considerable sway) to take a position Farrakahn supports? Even the most simple-minded politician could make that judgment (for why Obama falls into this category, keep reading).
Or are you referring to his unwavering commitment to a political position no matter what changes on the ground?
“his statements about foreign policy”
The ones he made on Monday or the ones on Tuesday — you know, about Iran being virtually no threat and Iran being a grave threat, respectively?
“his rhetorical skill, his work as an organizer”
I can think of someone else who also fits that description . . . but I doubt he’d have been a very good president.
“his academic background”
The one that included such splendid lessons in geography and history that he knows there are 57 states in the Union and that Auschwitz was in western Germany (or that the United States somehow beat the Soviets into Poland)?
“intellectual approach to problem-solving”
You mean the way he solves problems of his embarrassing associations — saying he could never renounce someone he’d known for 20 years any more than he could renounce the black community and then turning around and renouncing him a few weeks later? Does that mean he renounced the black community, too? The other day he said he had to leave his church (not out of political expediency, mind you; that would have been cynical), but couldn’t renounce it; that it wasn’t worth renouncing . . . how long until you think he’ll find it worth renounciation?
“My hopes
may[will] end up dashed.”Fixed it for you. He’ll either lose or get elected and you’ll find out he doesn’t have magical powers.
I was born during the Eisenhower administration. In my view, Clinton was the only President in my lifetime who excelled at his job, and of course his legacy is stained by, uh, the stained dress, among other moral failings. Excluding JFK because of the brevity of his term, the Presidential caliber has ranged from mediocre (LBJ, Ford, Reagan, Bush I) to awful (Nixon, Carter, Bush II).
Some of these men have had extensive resumes — especially LBJ and Bush I — and others less so. My point is simply that breadth of experience does not seem to be a useful predictor of Presidential caliber. I’m not sure what criteria are more helpful, except perhaps gut instinct regarding a candidate’s judgment and character.
I have an Obama bumper sticker on my car. This is partly because it covers a small dent in my bumper exceedingly well, and at the cost of one dollar it sure beats body work. It’s also there because I agree with him on most (not all) of the issues, and my gut told me that he would be a better President than Hillary. (McCain: let’s not go there). I think Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd or even crazy Joe Biden have more impressive resumes, but when I think of who I would want to have as leader, I think Obama is the winner hands down.