EDITORIAL: Hillary redux?

Everything I've read indicates: 1. Hillary would have won the Democratic nomination if it had been a winner take all situation for delegates. 2. Hillary would have won the majority of electoral college "votes" if you look at the states she won. That kind of destroys the thesis of your editorial.

What is incontrovertible is that voters do not place as much value on experience as they do judgment. They also prefer dynamic youth to crusty and creaky age, articulate policy pronouncements regardless of content to inarticulate, meandering and ill-conceived ideas, and the idea of something new rather than the same-old, same-old. All this leaves McCain in a world of problems. This appears to be Obama's election to lose. If McCain is to prevail, perhaps his best chance is to fashion a crafty strategy based on the electoral map only, paying attention to micro-groups of voters important in those states and telling them what they want to hear regardless of whether the electioneering fulfills all the principles of the straight-talk express.

Well, the difference is that McCain really does have experience, while Hillary's was trumped up. If this nation values judgment, as aero says, then it needs to look clearly at the people with whom Obama has surrounded himself over the years, and the people he gives credit to - in his own voice in his books - for being his mentors. He is dangerously naive in foreign policy matters and an economic ignoramous. McCain is not much better on the latter point, but he is much better on the former. One of my favorite weird old films is "Wild in the Streets." Recommended viewing for those who think that the enthusiastic idealism of young people translates to sound governance. Obama's supporters may be many - and he certainly has a good chance of winning the election. However, this doesn't mean it will be good for the country, which, contrary to what the media have been feeding us over the years, is just not in that bad shape.

I would second the statements by cthark and would add that Democrat primaries and general elections are totally different animals. The most left-wing voters widely praticipate in the former. In the general election, BHO must also contend with moderates and conservatives who will not just swallow the pie-in-the-sky pap that are his version of policy statements. "Mr. McCain has yet to grasp that the old electoral map and the old politics are dead." Says who. From everything I've seen, the red-blue map still holds and the swing states; PA,OH,etc., will determine the winner. BHO's skeletons are bound to resurface and this time there won't be only blacks, college professors, and college students passing judgement. I wouldn't be measuring the Oval Office for curtains just yet if I were BHO.

I'm sure the corporate liasons to the McCain compound are still very pleased with the way things are going. These clueless nimrods will wake up in November and go "By Jove, our man got spanked! Call London and tell them to sell!" McCain seems to have a knack for doing the very thing that makes me want to see him get his comeuppance. This is like watching milk curdle.

What you fail to see is that Clinton was actually beating Obama after mid-February. Had she not fallen down in the caucus states, she would have won. Clinton's formula for beating Obama actually developed in stages as she figured out how to compete against him. The formula in terms of stages of development is as follows: (1) (up to March) Establishing cred on experience, competence, policy wonkiness and winning every debate, THEN (2) (Feb - March) Literally taking acting classes (it was kind of obvious), teleprompter training, charm school training and becoming more of a performer than a stiff wonk, THEN (3) (March - April) Finding her niche personally, her own little corner of popular demagoguery (Norma Rae whisky shot drinker and working-woman-next-door), THEN (4) (April - June) Creating her own powerful narrative of tough competitor pulling out primary after primary, with a drama and impressive grit that became its own story and help create an emotional connection to millions of women and blue collar men who began rooting for her almost doomed campaign, THEN (5) Clinton put it all together to make Obama look like the tired establishment pig resting with all the resources behind him while she fought a scrappy, valient and substance-filled campaign; by the end of the primary season she was a very, very different candidate than the one who started it. At each stage in her growth as a candidate this year, Clinton held onto the gains and cred established in the previous development stage. For example, she never started LOSING debates against Obama after establishing dominance in (1). Each gain in her development became a permanent strength for her. In the end, the only contests Obama won were those where there were 2 primaries on one day and Clinton had to pick one to focus on. Now with each stage of development as a candidate, Clinton overcame either one of her negatives or found a counter to one of Obama's strengths. The lack of analysis of her amazing primary run this year is wholly due to people overlooking and belittling her talent, even to the point where analysis like in this article fails to note that she was beating Obama fairly consistently toward the end and that with each contest he did win, his margin was smaller. Clinton's formula to beating Obama is clear from her development stages. Each development stage could form the basis of a separate analysis of her weaknesses and Obama's strengths. McCain, as you note, has similar issues. All he has to do is figure out his version of each of Clinton's growth stages as a candidate against Obama, and map it to his own growing candidacy. Note that each stage of development of her candidacy requires a brilliant person, especially (1), and Clinton had her own and her husband's to draw on.

I agree on the experience issue with a caveat. Experience of whatever length of doing something that is wrong or doesn't work is of more questionable value than a fresh aproach from an obviously intelligent person of limited experience.