Wednesday, March 05, 2008

The Sanjaya Effect? (And a Few Other Stray March 4 Thoughts)   [Rich Lowry]

First of all, I couldn't help but be delighted by Hillary's comeback and not for calculating, this-will-divide-the-Democrats reasons. I truly admire politicians (well, except maybe for Mike Huckabee) who keep on going even though everyone counts them out. The disdain directed toward Hillary by the elite media was unmistakable (I agree with J-Pod), and I'm glad she fought through it (in the process ruining the vacation plans of countless journalists who wanted nothing more than for her to get out of the way). I directed my share of disdain at Hillary, and thought her Cleveland debate performance was so pathetic, it had to signal the beginning of the end. The prescient Jim Geraghty, in contrast, detected signs of life. Anyway, a few more thoughts:

—We saw last night that "Yes, we can" doesn't have quite the same resonance when you've just suffered two big losses. How long before some journalists start writing that Obama's oratory is boring? What Obama has to worry about is the Sanjaya effect. Young girls swooned for him when the crooner was on American Idol and he was swarmed as the hottest celebrity at the White House Correspondent's Dinner last year. Now, if anyone remembers who he was, they have to wonder, "What the hell was that all about?" Obama's a talented guy with formidable advantages in the nomination contest still, but when people are routinely fainting at your rallies, it's probably a sign that you're a craze, which is wonderful—while it lasts. At the very least, Obama's halo has slipped, and he will have to spend some time down on Earth with the rest of us mere terrestrials.

—Why did everyone forget this year that negative ads often work? Candidates in both parties talked themselves into staying positive. Romney's negative ads against Huckabee were relatively gentle, and I don't think he ran negative TV ads against McCain after New Hampshire. Hillary's "red phone" ad made a real, significant doubt about Obama part of the conversation in a way it never would have been without the ad. 

—Obama is still the frontrunner. The Hillary scenario has to depend on a blow-out victory in Pennsylvania, say 15 points, Obama sinking in the head-to-head match ups against McCain, and somehow Florida and Michigan counting. Then, she can argue the race is basically a tie, and Obama is too much of a risk, and maybe, maybe, eke out a painful, ugly victory. 

—But in those circumstances, the party would be denying an African-American the nomination when by the most important metric—pledged delegates—he's ahead, if ever so slightly. How can the Democrats ever do that? They would risk alienating African-Americans and creating a rift in the heart of their party. Perhaps the best possible scenario for Republicans is that Obama deflates, but given how hard it will be for Clinton to catch up in the pledged delegates and the popular vote, Democrats have no choice but to give him the nomination anyway.  

—There will be lots of talk about a Hillary-Obama or Obama-Hillary ticket. That might soothe the rift, but neither is what the other needs. Obama needs either someone with real military credibility or someone with outsider reformist credentials, to accent his own. Hillary doesn't do it. Hillary needs a centrist. Obama doesn't do it.

—How incredible is it that Bush and McCain are having a love-fest at the White House, and Democrats are at each others throats in an increasingly bitter contest that involves the hot buttons of race and gender? 

—Polls show that older whites are relatively immune to Obama's charms. Was there ever a better time—if Obama is the nominee—for Republicans to turn to an old white guy?  

—What Democrats have to be wondering is if Hillary can score points against Obama on his experience to be commander-in-chief, what will McCain be able to do with that issue in the fall?

—The Obama camp seems to be signaling that they are going to fight back against Hillary's "kitchen sink" attacks by hitting back at all that's ethically questionable in her background. The problem is that everyone already knows Hillary is a flawed politician; she's really never pretended to be otherwise in this race. The reason Obama is so hurt by relatively small-bore scandals like NAFTA-gate is that his entire appeal is based on being a soaring inspirational figure, so the merest suggestion that he's just another shifty politician is devastating to his image. 

—Speaking of soaring, it might be that Obama is a little too cool (and remote) for his own good. One reason I thought he did so well in that Cleveland debate is that he turned in such a graceful, above-it-all performance. But a lot of voters want a grubby fighter. I thought this was one of Hillary's best lines of the campaign from last night at the beginning of her victory speech: "For everyone here in Ohio and across America who’s ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you."

—As I mentioned before, Obama is a very talented guy, and he has out-campaigned, out-fundraised, out-organized, and out-classed Clinton so far. He very well may rise to this latest challenge, and beat Hillary in Pennsylvania. That looks like the last, easiest way for him to put a clean end to the race. 

—Also, here is my instant reaction from last night in the New York Post (also noted in the web briefing).

03/05 05:42 PMShare