Bursting the Obama Bubble

Via Instapundit, there's Krugman and Kevin Drum discussing when the "Obamamania" bubble will burst. I agree with both of them.

Krugman first:

One thing I worry about a lot if Obama is the Dem nominee — and he’s surely the frontrunner now — is that there will be a backlash against Obamamania. Actually, it’s already starting — probably too late to have much effect on the nomination fight, but in plenty of time to affect the general election.

I hope I’m just a cynical baby boomer who has never really trusted any politician since 1968. But I just have a very bad feeling about the way things are going.

Now Kevin: [More...]

I think Krugman is right: bubbles always burst, and Obama has been riding a major league bubble for months now. Before too much longer his supporters are going to come down to earth. Reporters will start wondering why Obama doesn't like to talk to them very much — and then they'll get bored and cynical and start doing to him what they did to Howard Dean in 2004. John McCain is going to find his rhythm (though he hasn't yet) and start making some effective jabs.

This backlash meme is already widespread, and you can almost feel in the air that it's about to explode into a feeding frenzy. In other words, it ain't over yet.

I agree his bubble will burst, sooner than later. The question then is whether we will have a repeat of McGovern in November.

Update: To be clear, the McGovern comparison has nothing to do with Obama's liberalness. I don't think he's a liberal. The comparison has to do with the result in November if the bubble bursts on his message of hope and change and if the right wing successfully smears him with it. In that event, I'm asking whether the results in November will resemble those of the McGovern race.

< The Incompetent Clinton Campaign | Sexism From Howard Fineman >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Firefly4625 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:20:04 AM EST
    the media are making a concerted effort to hold off on doing anything that will burst Obama's bubble until after they, together, have succeeded in knocking Clinton out. If they pull it off, that's when all h*ll will break loose, imo.

    It's all so painfully obvious (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Jim J on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:29:18 AM EST
    I hate to bring this up, but this whole thing almost stinks of a rigged election, from the deliberate attempt to undermine the credibility of the superdelegate system (invariably in Obama's favor), the absurd overhyping of caucus wins (and conversely the downplaying of big-state closed primary wins), the clearly misogynist double standard regarding Hillary, the bizarre avoidance of his middle name (so far), how quickly CNN jumped to Obama's defense to "debunk" the madrassa thing, etc.

    In this case (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by tek on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:56:15 PM EST
    it isn't just the media, but the Democratic Party who are to blame.

    The party purposely drafted Obama to split the vote, then they have remained mum while the media thrashes Hillary, a former Democratic First Lady, mercilessly. They are trying to rig the election as much as the media and it stinks. They keep talking about "the new, exciting young voters" as if the long-standing traditional Democrats are just chaffe.


    Exactly. Dems have met the enemy (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:52:33 PM EST
    and it is Dems themselves.  Despite watching our party for many decades, watching us lose some doozies, I am stunned at the mess we may be in now.  If ever there was an election that ought to have been in the bag for us, owing to the current Resident of the White House, this is it.  Yet I keep seeing the mistakes of 1972 again. . . .

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by sas on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:22:06 PM EST
    Who the hell asked Obama to get in this race?  Don't tell me Obama decided to run all by  himself.

    (One has to seriously wonder about a guy who thinks, as a junior Senator, that he is qualified to be president.)

    Some people egged him on, imo.  I'm just waiting to find out who put him up to it, and who provided his financial backing in the beginning.  It will come out, and I don't think it will be good.


    interesting question (none / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    (One has to seriously wonder about a guy who thinks, as a junior Senator, that he is qualified to be president.)

    I guess you don't think that one has to wonder about a gal who thinks, as a junior Senator, that she is qualified to be President?


    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sas on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:31:28 PM EST
    is not a junior Senator.

    Really? (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    Did Chuck Schumer quit while I wasn't looking?

    I thought (none / 0) (#107)
    by IndependantThinker on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:54:51 PM EST
    it was fairly understood that Dick Durbin asked Obama to run.

    It is rigged. (none / 0) (#19)
    by IndependantThinker on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:51:12 AM EST
    In my opinion: (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    The voters are being played.
    I believe Clinton can beat McCain, but she'll never get the chance.
    Obama will get the Dem nom, and McCain will win the GE by hammering Obama's lack of experience.
    We will be able to blame two things:  
    Voter ignorance, and media manipulation of the daily narrative.
    I repeat, this is my opinion.
    Hope I'm wrong.

    Dems will lose big if they nominate Obama (3.00 / 1) (#131)
    by lily15 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:08:14 PM EST
    But the blame will rest with the Democratic Party.  Why would the country want a party that trashed its most successful member, to lead them?  Democrats have trashed Bill and Hillary...the only Dems to hold the Whitehouse since FDR...and this is a party Americans should trust to lead?  Plus Obama has no foreign policy experience and has now demonstrated to us that his message is not authentic.  If any progressives think the majority of Americans are buying into the affirmative action Presidency...then they deserve to lose...Progressives will be to blame big time...Krugman is right..as he usually is...The blow will be crushing...but when progressives really want others to catch their back...the Hillary Dems will flip them off....Democrats have allowed an inexperienced phony Senator to hijack a proven winner...using sexism and right wing talking points.  Shame on them.   Watch the excitement of this election to fizzle if Obama is the nominee....If people trust Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to lead them to the One, they will be sadly mistaken.  This is a set up.  I repeat.  Democrats are being set up.  

    I hope you're wrong too (none / 0) (#24)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:06:24 PM EST
    But I agree with you.

    Hammering lack of experience (none / 0) (#62)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:07:45 PM EST
    is what Hillary tried. It didn't work.  Unfortunately there's no way of knowing how the non-winning Candidate would have performed.

     I think there's no way Hillary can win a GE.  She is getting beaten in head to head state polls in places like Oregon, that no Democrat should lose in this political enviroment.  It is early and polls change.  However she has not shown any sign of expanding past her base.  Most people know who she is and have made up their minds.  I don't see her making up much ground.


    Obamanians (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by tek on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    have memes, too. Like the one about vote for the war resolution. It's completely stupid, like Republicans who are one-issue voters: abortion.

    We know absolutely Hillary is no war monger, that vote was in a particular context. yet, the Obama people have waged a whole campaign around it, and created the fairy tale that Obama would have voted no, when they no nothing of the sort.

    At the forum where I regularly post (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:15:31 PM EST
    the Hillary supporters are outnumbered 2 to 1 in the  Hillary 08 thread by Obama "supporters."

    A couple of them post over and over again, "How come you don't want to talk about dead soldiers?" "How about those dead guys?" "How's it feel supporting a murderer?"

    The others post variations on "she lied again," "another nasty unjustified false attack on  decent man," "she'll say/do anything," and my personal favorite, "Why are you Clinton supporters so touchy?"

    Not making this up.


    remember (none / 0) (#94)
    by sas on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:07:57 PM EST
     most internet posts and blogs are from the young who have access to and interest in computers.  Most Democratic voters are not represented here.

    You are going to see many Obama favored posts.

    Don't get excited.  


    I just saw Obama on CNN (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by annabelly on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:11:28 PM EST
    Speaking at a Town Hall in Texas, and the Deval things appears to already be having an effect. He was reading straight from a speech in front of him on the lectern, instead of the famous sweeping oratory, complete with hand gestures and eye contact. He stumbled a lot, and the ideas were awkwardly phrased. He was talking about the mortgage crisis, which I'll admit, I don't fully understand myself, but he clearly didn't understand it either. I don't know if he's tired, or if he feels he can't use his normal stump speeches for the time being, or if it was the format, or what, but it was weird for sure. I've grown used to the other Obama, the confident, consummate Obama.

    Paging Oprah: Obama's James Frey moment has arrive (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BluestBlue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:17:01 PM EST
    SusanUnPC over at NoQuarterUSA has an excellent  Bubble Bursting post!

    I wonder if Oprah will devote a show to tearing Obama down when she reads that his memoir shares much in common with James Frey's book, "A Million Little Pieces"?

    Will Oprah feel as duped by Obama as she was by James Frey? Why didn't she look into Barack Obama a little more closely after being already being duped by James Frey and his memoir? Wasn't that a watershed moment for her?

    From the live blogging link above:

    4:00 p.m. Yeah, reading Gawker's account of the taping earlier today spoiled some of this, but the printed account can't do justice to the rare sight of Oprah in righteous-anger mode. She begins with a brief recap of the scandal surrounding A Million Little Pieces, up to her phone call to Larry King defending Frey. ''I regret that phone call. I made a mistake, and I left the impression that the truth does not matter.'' Snap! ''To everyone who challenged me on the issue of truth, you are absolutely right.''
    4:05 Oprah confronts Frey face to face. ''I really feel duped. More than that, I feel you betrayed millions of readers.''

    We knew the press was refusing to give us information that would disrupt their lovely narrative of Obama as the worthy contender triumphing over Hillary, but good lord!

    Obama's pilfered remark "Just Words" takes on an added significance now. It truly is "Just Words" for Obama!

    The whole discussion of the importance of words and why it mattered that his speeches were not his own words since that is all his campaign was based on... this news about his books raises the "words" discussion to a whole new level of importance!

    I can't imagine what else is out there lying in the weeds. We know about Rezko, the fund raiser and the "mansion purchase enabler", now his fictional autobiography, what else is out there?

    It's not JUST his "Just Words?" Speech (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:19:47 PM EST
    Check this out.  It is verbatim.

    As an artist, I have always maintained that when plagiarizers are caught with one "little" thing, there's almost a 99% chance that there's more theft to be found;  it's like a plant with extensive roots.  And people are finding it.  And they will continue to find it, the floodgates having opened.  And you just wait...his bubble will burst really quickly.


    Sorry you don't like it (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    But I was backing up tek's observation.

    It's not Clinton's supporters who are starting to creep people out with their malicious fervor.

    To be clear (none / 0) (#83)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    it isn't Clinton supporters who are creeping out Clinton supporters with their malicious fervor.  

    If you go searching in the fever swamps for insight, don't be surprised when you get cholera.


    Well if they are not (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by IndependantThinker on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:50:19 PM EST
    creeping out the majority of Obama supporters, then this country is in for a rough time if Obama is elected.

    It's not a fever swamp (none / 0) (#87)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:46:22 PM EST
    It's a general purpose, not all political, discusion forum. Mostly liberal.

    The problem with political blogs (none / 0) (#99)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    is that they are generally little different that grammar school playgrounds.  Adherence to the local rules is mandatory.  Failure to adhere results in ridicule and scorn.  To compound the problem people start to become even more zealous to prove their devotion to the local rules.  

    They are not representative of the real world.

    So yes there is a cultish behavior on the blogs.  But it is true of all the candidates, to one extent or the other.  Be it Obama, Hillary, Thompson, Romney, and especially the Internet phenom Ron Paul.

    But those same people who act cultish on a blog are mostly regular folks who allow an alternate persona to gain control.  

    Blogs are a boon and a bane to political discourse.


    Amazing (none / 0) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:10:12 AM EST
    In one of the links there is a great rock song from 1988, Cult of Personality, worth watching.  Danny' Glover's son is in the band.  
    I think it really hits it on the head, for me.  
    Living Colour

    I agree (none / 0) (#2)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:12:21 AM EST
    The question is what will be left when the magic fades.  My hunch is he will still be "likable enough."  Here's David Brooks:

    Those afflicted with [Obama Comedown Syndrom] are no longer as moved by his perorations. The fever passes. But some invisible connection seems to persist.

    My favorite: (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:08:26 PM EST
    For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we've been here all along?

    Please attribute quote (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:55:56 PM EST
    although Brooks did not do so, either.  Who was the source of "We are the ones we've been waiting for"?

    Depends (none / 0) (#3)
    by koshembos on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    Alas, history is not too kind the exploding balloon idiom. Without comparing the leaders themselves (they are neither similar nor are Obama and Reagan dictators): Hitler's, Stalin's, Reagan's and many many others have formed legends without legs or wings. Still those legends took off and and died, if at all, only way after they were long discredited.

    Although I read the signs mentioned by Krugman and Drum, I tend to think that the explosion will not come soon. If Obama gets to the GE, he may lose because the Republican bulldozer has more power.

    Um (none / 0) (#4)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:18:27 AM EST
    The only name you mentioned that is even remotely unabsurd is Reagan.  And if Obama is our Reagan, that's really not so bad.

    Um*2: it's the movement not the leader:UMMMMM (none / 0) (#12)
    by koshembos on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:33:45 AM EST
    Not (none / 0) (#48)
    by tek on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:50:21 PM EST
    so bad? You're too young to remember the Reagan years, aren't you? He drained every cent from regular people and gave it to millionaires, we had homeless for the first time, he sent out Marines into harm's way for his own gain. Yah, not so bad. Actually, that's the thing I worry about, he'll be like Reagan, if he gets elected, which is doubtful.

    I am old enough (none / 0) (#50)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:54:32 PM EST
    to have got ketchup as a vegetable in my free school lunch!

    The point is not to defend Reagan's policies.  The point is that if Obama meets with the electoral success that Reagan met with, the Democrats will be doing pretty well.


    What? (none / 0) (#53)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM EST
    We didn't have homeless before Reagan?  

    You come up with some of the most bizarre views of America I have ever read.


    Yes there were homeless people (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:02:55 PM EST
    before Reagan. But it is also true that there was an increase in their numbers during the Reagan years, and that in DC (and perhaps elsewhere) a large number of people became homeless when mental health services were severely curtailed. I think that must be what the commenter is referring to. The commenter overstates it, but I remember the closing of St. Elizabeth's and the effect that had.

    It's true. (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Reagan's failure on homelessness

    'Before Reagan, people sleeping in the street were so rare that, outside of skid rows, they were almost a curiosity. After eight years of Reaganomics - - and the slashes in low-income housing and social welfare programs that went along with it -- they were seemingly everywhere.

    And America had a new household term: "The homeless." '


    '"He was a catastrophe," said Terry Messman, who co-founded the now- defunct Oakland Union of the Homeless in 1986. "He was single-handedly responsible for homelessness as we know it today -- and he did it to feed the wealthy and the Pentagon."'


    Yes, he ignored AIDs (none / 0) (#109)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:56:44 PM EST
    My brother died from it in 1985.

    Yes. Mental patients were thrown out on the (none / 0) (#121)
    by derridog on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:52:52 PM EST
    streets when they closed the big mental hospitals all over the country. Ostensibly that was to treat the mentally ill more humanely, but, in reality, it was to save a lot of government money which had gone to house the mentally ill.  Then, on top of that, the "trickle down effect" didn't work then any more than it does now.   Whole families were living on the streets or in their cars.

    Yes, Reagan did these things along with trading weapons to Iran to arm the Contras in Nicaragua for an illegal war that he then lied about (GHW Bush was in this up to his eyeballs, as well -so Reagan pardoned everyone who had gotten the slightest bit of justice, like Oliver North, who is now on TV making big bucks).   Too bad they don't teach this in the history books.  Even at the time, all we heard from the MSM was how "genial" Reagan was and what great jokes he told (in his senile dementia everything reminded him of some bad show business joke that he would tell over and over).  Oh, and all you young ones also missed out on the pictures of his colon when he had it operated on.   Even Reagan's colon was worshipped by the adoring media. it probably told great jokes too.


    Reagan Did Not Invent AIDS or homelessness (none / 0) (#138)
    by John D on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:56:42 AM EST
    Actually it was the "gay community" that resisted making information about how AIDS was spread widely available. Recall the SF Comissioners resistance to closing the bath houses and treating it as a communicable disease becasue of fears of "stigma." I guess dying was preferable.

    Neither Reagan nor anyone in the government had any magic power to cure it. They still don't. But it's quite preventable if you take the proper precautions. That has been know almost from the start. The only people that had a chance of stopping it was the "gay community" themselves.

    As for the "homeless", I remember the Hobo camps from when I was a kid in the 1960's and 1970's. We just called them "bums" and hobos instead of "homeless". The calls for the closing of the mental health facilites were from the "liberals" in the 1960's and 1970's as well. They were responsible not only for the closure of the mental health facilities but for the "patients rights" cause that prevents the mentally ill from being removed from the streets. Can't force them into facilities against their will. Even if they are not capable of making the decision.

    They were discovered by the news media during Reagan's term and have been a mainstay of the news media ever since.

    The "Homeless" disappeared for a while during the Clinton Administration, but miraculously reappeared during the Bush years. I have never been able to determine where they went during those eight years. Maybe they were all in Cuba.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:04:46 PM EST
    That is largely true.

    In response to all 3 comments (none / 0) (#97)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    I completely that Reagan exacerbated homelessness both needlessly and heartlessly.  He certainly increased homelessness by an order of magnitude, and for that he should never be forgiven.

    But to say that his Administration created the problem of homelessness is just plain silly.


    yep, the media (none / 0) (#5)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:18:42 AM EST
    ... is getting bored with the current meme, and seems to be beginning to shift to another one.  We all knew it would happen sooner or later.  Once the "exciting insurgent" takes the lead, and holds it for a while, then it's time to take him down.

    And a preview of GOP talking points against Obama, as David Brooks tries to stoke it even more in today's NYT attempting to coin the phrase "Obama Comedown Syndrome"

    perhaps he is the (none / 0) (#6)
    by elim on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:19:42 AM EST
    Democratic equivalent of Bob Dole, someone whose time had come to run (and lose).  You can't elevate him based on race, despite his lack of substance, experience, and accomplishment, and then complain when he actually takes off.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    How can you say "his time has come" if he's so inexperienced?  The entire point of the Bob Dole comparison is that he waited, many, many cycles for that opportunity.

    funny (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    thats funny the people that started the Obama cult meme, are now the ones claiming that it is catching on.

    Cults frequently do catch on (none / 0) (#27)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:08:57 PM EST
    That's what makes them so dangerous.

    Entertainment Tonight (none / 0) (#11)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:33:26 AM EST
    I watched the clip of the ET coverage of the Obama words issue and what struck me was that not only was ET covering it and that it wasn't bending over backwards to be favorable to Obama.  It was also that it pointed viewers to another clip on You Tube that showed women fainting at Obama's speeches and it seemed to me that it was trying to start a new controversy. (Here's one of the You Tube clips mentioned on You Tube.)

    The Obama Bubble (none / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:42:16 AM EST
    A recent brief, metaphoric interrogation of the actual bubble, as well as a subtle suggestion that it needs to be burst, appears here.

    Some of us keep swinging, anyway.

    Too late, Kevin. (none / 0) (#16)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:45:23 AM EST
    If Kevin wasn't as lazy as he is, he would have figured this out already.  Too bad he already voted for Obama.

    Too bad also that he joined other so-called progressive bloggers (SCPB) in trashing Hillary, or kept quiet when she was being trashed.

    That's why intellectual honesty and speaking truth matters a great deal.

    The train has left the station, and Kevin is on it.  Enjoy the ride, Kevin.

    The "bubble" was created by the media (none / 0) (#17)
    by my opinion on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:47:20 AM EST
    and will be ended by the corporate media when it suits their republican interests. This whole campaign has been predictable since the media forced it to start early after the democrats had significant wins in 2006 and the media didn't want to talk about that story so they started talking about the next election.

    I want to know what happens (none / 0) (#18)
    by IndependantThinker on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM EST
    after Obama is elected President. Will any criticism of Obama's Administration result in accusations of racism? Will he be the first President to enact rules of censorship under the guise of reform of the MSM? Will he usher in an new age of McCarthyism? I fear another Bush who can't handle criticism or admit to any mistake.

    and how would the comment sound if (none / 0) (#21)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:56:35 AM EST
    we changed two words, so that it read thusly:

    after Clinton is elected President. Will any criticism of Clinton's Administration result in accusations of sexsm? Will she be the first President to enact rules of censorship under the guise of reform of the MSM? Will she usher in an new age of McCarthyism? I fear another Bush who can't handle criticism or admit to any mistake.

    Clinton hasn't (none / 0) (#23)
    by IndependantThinker on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:03:45 PM EST
    been getting a free pass from the Media, and her supporters are not the ones who have acted so poorly that they've been chased off blog after blog due to their comments. Sexism has been used in this primary to Clinton's disadvantage time and again. Only charges of Racism have galvanized the Media and the charge of racism against the Clintons was bogus.

    It would sound absurd. (none / 0) (#32)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:19:13 PM EST
    Because she doesn't accuse her critics of sexism as every opportunity. She doesn't have time even if she spent the rest of her life doing it, and she can't afford to trigger the even greater barrage of sexism that would follow (no sense of humor, too sensitive, she's imagining things, it's just the way people talk, etc.)

    She's withstood a decade and a half of double standards, sexism, attacks and lies from the RW and the media. She also doesn't have time, nor would she assume the authority, to censor the MSM. They might have to self-censor their misogyny to some degree for a woman president - but this would be a GOOD thing. All of us would benefit from this.

    After all the criticism she's taken, with a smile, while she keeps on doing what she does, you fear another Bush who can't handle criticism?

    No, sorry. It's Obama and his followers who can't handle criticism.


    Unsolicited piece of advice (none / 0) (#39)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:28:48 PM EST
    for Clinton supporters: Lay off the "Obama plays the race card" theme.  Whatever happened back in January, both candidates stepped away from the brink.  It's a good place to be.

    Needless to say, this applies to Obama supporters and the "Hillary plays the gender card" theme.  But you don't need me to tell you that! :)


    Sexism (none / 0) (#56)
    by tek on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    has not been a plus for Hillary in this election. Rather, she's been hurt by being a woman. But, she isn't crying "Sexist" they're playing the sexist card, the way Obama has been whining about racism. It's disgusting.

    Two sides to the bubble (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:55:53 AM EST
    There is another bubble that is being played.  The extreme right wing vapors about McCain, are completely artificial.  The news is always talking how Centrist he is, how he is not a reactionary, how he is not extreme.  All that faux, he is the one for the indie and the mild Republican.

     I think those clever foxes (pun intended) know what they are doing.  What is the distinguishing characteristic of McCain, he is always portrayed as the centrist, example talks against torture but in the end votes for it.  

    They also are dying for Obama and played up the, they want Hillary.  They know that in policy, debates, everything Hillary would beat the pants off McCain and will make him look like the boffoon he is.  With Obama, all that McCain has to do is give that smirk he gave Romney and he will have the same white guys that voted for Obama, pulling the leaver for Mc.Cain.  

    Also the Hillary negatives jive is jive that was fueled by the Obama narcissism for the win in the primary.  I don't buy it for a second.  We are gonna lose and lose big the GE.  

    "Hillary negatives jive"? (none / 0) (#22)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    Hmmm, if "periodical" is sexist, is "jive" racist?

    In any event, the "Hillary negatives jive" meme existed well before Obama was running for president.  Don't blame it on "Obama narcissism"


    Yes, jive. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    Slang. deceptive, exaggerated, or meaningless talk
    Webster's dictionary.  Jive can be done by any race, not limited to periodically, to women.  

    It's not jive. (none / 0) (#72)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    It's real and measurable. In SC where I am it's darn near visceral.

    I actually like her more than Bill who I supported in his first presidential election until the Ricky Ray Rector incident.


    Only a matter of time (none / 0) (#26)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:08:38 PM EST
    Obama has been given a free ride by the media without question, and the high he's on can't last for long. If Obama is the Democratic nominee the bubble will almost certainly burst in some respects. Compound that with the fact that Obama is not a great debater, and with his lack of experience would have a hard time combating McCain if some national security or international crisis occured, and you have the formula for a possible landslide win by McCain. I don't think that happens, but there is a possible way it does.

    I would be a lot of money on McCain (none / 0) (#28)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:12:41 PM EST
    vs. Obama, if I were a betting man.
    Obama supporters are definitely in for a rude shock if he is the nominee. The GOP love will dry up overnight. Is Obama ready for this? I doubt it.

    Why do you think (none / 0) (#34)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:21:03 PM EST
    that Obama supports have some sort of illusion that Republican are going to defect en masse? Obama supporters believe that some Republicans will choose to either sit it out or flip.  Most will not.  

    I would guess because they are young (none / 0) (#37)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:23:10 PM EST
    and naive. No one who has been around the block will believe that Republican PDA's towards Obama indicate any real commitment.

    I am not young or naive (none / 0) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    I understand politics pretty, IMO.  

    Your argument could have been, in reverse, in 1980.  No Democrat would vote for the party of Richard Nixon.  Impossible.

    Yet they did.  By very large numbers.

    Of course the hard core Conservative isn't voting for Obama.  But there are a lot of liberal Republicans out there, at least liberal compared to the Republican Party on the whole.  And, believe it or not, a lot of them are none too keen on staying in Iraq.  I think it would be foolish to ignore these potential voters because they could be a factor.

    Of course the Clinton campaign doesn't like to talk about this because they are reviled by virtually ALL Republicans as well as most Conservative Independents.


    Flyerhawk, you may be right (none / 0) (#45)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    But I'm looking at almost 8 years of the Bush presidency, run by the man who promised to be a "uniter".  I'm looking at a Congress where the Democrats are currently in the majority, and still can't get anything done, because the GOP is still in lockstep with one of the most unpopular presidents ever.
    And I have to say that I think Republican voters are not going to come to Obama.  I think you are being played.  I think Obama is being played.  And I think disaster is right around the corner for the Democratic party.

    I have no idea (none / 0) (#57)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:02:55 PM EST
    The questions you have to ask yourself are the following.

    1. Will Republicans vote for Obama?  Some probably will.  The vast majority won't.

    2. Will Republicans vote for Hillary?  Almost zero.

    3. Will Independents vote for Obama?  Certainly.  He has a tremendous appeal in this group.

    4. Will Indepdendents vote for Hillary?  Some will.  How many remains unclear as it is hard to see how many would pick Hillary over Independent popular  McCain.

    5. Will Democrats vote for Obama?  Yes.  In large numbers.  And assuming nothing really nasty happens during the convention the Clinton supports will vote for him.

    6. Will Democrats vote for Hillary? Yes.  In large numbers.  And assuming nothing really nasty happens during the convention the Obama supports will vote for him.

    If we can't win the Independents we can't win the White House.  Simple as that.  If we are relying on only Democrats we will have a repeat of 2004.

    Independents (none / 0) (#61)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    McCain has great appeal to Independents also.  It's not at all clear to me that they will break for Obama when they are thinking about who they want in charge during a crisis.

    This is true (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:13:08 PM EST
    As I said if we lose the Independents, we lose the election.  It is as simple that.

    Paul Lukasiak (none / 0) (#75)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    covered this question. There is a difference between independents and moderates. His conclusions (paraphrasing) was that while independents prefer Obama, moderates prefer Clinton. Indies will vote anything from Nazi party to Communist party in the GE. Moderates, however, are the real "swing" voters who aren't fully conservative or fully liberal but a mixture of the two. In this GE< there are going to be a lot of moderates whoa re anti-war but not pro-Obama.

    So Clinton gets the middle and the Dems and Obama gets the Dems and maybe the fringes. If we lose the moderates we lose the election. Advantage Clinton.


    McCain will win many Democratic (none / 0) (#95)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:14:07 PM EST
    votes. That is quite clear. He will also do at least as well as Obama among Independents.

    That's great if you want (none / 0) (#47)
    by my opinion on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    a president that appeals to conservatives. We already have one of those.

    Don't be silly (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:14:59 PM EST
    I clearly stated that he WON'T appeal to Conservatives.  Conservatives are either going to vote McCain or not vote at all.  They are not voting for either Obama or Clinton.

    You are simply quoting the coperate media (none / 0) (#84)
    by my opinion on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    talking points. I have seen the same thing time and time again. First of all there are no "Liberal" republicans. Second moving the campaign to the right is supposedly always required for Democrats but Republicans are great for going as far right as possible. I have seen this numerous times for many years. It is the same argument by the media that requires Democrats to back down to Republicans every time.

    yup and they will laugh at the naive (none / 0) (#126)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:18:01 PM EST
    obama supporters who think repubs will vote for him in ge. it will be distain.

    Obama may not be a great debater (none / 0) (#30)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:15:40 PM EST
    But McCain sure isn't either. Maybe McCain can entertain the audience with "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran and other golden oldies.

    Some people may long for the days of Hillary Clinton's fine debating style "shrill" voice and all.

    I never thought her voice was shrill (none / 0) (#139)
    by splashy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:37:10 PM EST
    Never could figure out what they are talking about.

    That is most likely a slur on women's voices in general.


    I always get a kick (none / 0) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:19:40 PM EST
    out of people that wish to anthropomorphisize the media into a single sentient entity that gets bored or changes its mind.

    The media is a conglomerate of countless different entities that constantly are throwing out different stories or different perspectives/narratives.  When a story or narrative catches on the rest of the media jumps on board.  

    The main reason that Obama hasn't been taken to task is that there hasn't been a narrative that has taken hold of the public's interest.  And without that the media has no interest in the story.

    In the case of the "plagiarism scandal", the Clinton campaign sent out the memo about the Patrick quotes.  The media has picked it up because there has been some buzz on the story.  Most likely the story will fade with the end of the news cycle.  There simply isn't enough there to really keep the story going.  

    The media has no favorite sons or daughters.  They  are a reflection of political CW.  CW says that Hillary is unliked.  CW says that Obama is vague on policies.  Since CW says that the media reports that.  

    Don't agree with that - at all (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Firefly4625 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    I think they are rigging the election - plain and simple - and they're getting away with it.

    ALL I hear is:

    Obama - good - no story - nothing to see here - makes good points about Clinton's faults - being attacked constantly by Clinton but holds up so well under the onslaught of viciousness - so inspiring!

    Clinton - bad - conniving and dishonest - cheap tricks for political gain - in her last throes - desperate.

    I was especially struck by this little exchange this morning on CNN - about the plagiarism accusations:

    JOHN DICKERSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the first thing to know about the controversy is that it's not a serious one. It's being pushed by the Clinton campaign, and so it's a bit silly. What it's over is a match in some remarks by Barack Obama recently that matched Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts words, on this debate over whether words are sufficient to build a political movement. And Obama's speech matches something that Patrick said. This is an attempt by the Clinton campaign to get in Obama's face...

    Well, it goes on and on, so here's the link



    When you listen to commentators (none / 0) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:11:58 PM EST
    You should expect commentary.

    This is a petty attack by the Clinton campaign.  It isn't plagiarism, since that would require that he was unauthorized to use it.  


    Clinton has a nice sound bite on this (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    Paraphrasing: If your campaign is about words, they should be your own words.

    I don't care whether it's plagiarism, that's not the point. But like Clinton's point or not, think it's accurate or not, she succinctly stated a precise and easily understandable nugget that will resonate with some people.


    And I am sure that will resonate (none / 0) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    among her supporters.  

    OK, stop it. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    It isn't plagiarism, since that would require that he was unauthorized to use it.

    You really need to stop distorting.

    Plagiarism is not nullified by getting permission.

    Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement.

    This has nothing to do with having permission. It is about failing to give attribution.


    Oh really? (none / 0) (#82)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:37:13 PM EST
    So when a speechwriter, writes a speech for a candidate, is the candidate plagiarizing the speechwriter?  

    How bout we go with the more authoritative Random House definition of plagiarism..

    A. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

    This isn't academia.  Please stop pretending that it is for partisan purposes.


    "Representation as one's own (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    original work" is exactly the problem -- so yes, how 'bout we go with this definition you give.  Works for me.  

    Just didn't work for Obama, and he got caught. And now, so did you, and you also did it to yourself.  


    Oh brother (none / 0) (#96)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    Willfully ignoring context serves no purpose.

    It was a speech.  Not a published work.  Not a research paper.  Not a high school essay.  A political speech.

    If Deval Patrick doesn't care, why should you?


    So if you can't find a definition (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:03:20 PM EST
    that supports your opinion, you'll make one up!

    It doesn't matter what form it takes. If someone else said it/wrote it/sang it it first, and you know it, and you don't give attribution, it's plagiarism.

    It's not up to Deval Patrick to care. It's up to the people in the audience when Obama made the speeches. He was deceiving them, and they ought to care.

    It's also up to every other person whose work someone else took for themselves. It's theft. It is a serious ethical breach. Most of all it shows extremely poor judgment, because he has to have known he'd eventually get caught.


    Oh please (none / 0) (#119)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:34:18 PM EST
    I linked to the ACTUAL DEFINITION.  How am I making up a definition?  This is straight dishonesty on your part.

    It's not up to Deval Patrick to determine whether someone plagiarized material?  Huh?  And if Obama called him up last week and said "He Deval, do you mind if I crib a couple of your lines for speech?" and he said "No problem.  Go for it!" That doesn't matter?  Well certainly it doesn't matter when it comes to your faux indignation.  

    It amazes me how some will rationalize political events to suit a political purpose.

    How bout you answer my earlier question.  Is it plagiarism for a politician to use a speech writer's work without giving them public acknowledgment?  


    It's not up to Deval Patrick or to me (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:10 PM EST
    or to you.  And speech is not exempted.  Careers have been ruined because of this, so you might benefit from learning the rules (and in some cases, the law).

    You didn't highlight the important part (none / 0) (#89)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    the representation of them as one's own original work.

    Which is what happens when you don't give attribution.


    I'm fine with pack mentality to a point (none / 0) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    They are more like an anarchic mob than anything else.

    I had read that they were the ones who leveled the charged against Obama...

    Clinton's staff tried to raise doubts about Obama's credibility, pointing out that he has hedged on a pledge to limit himself to public financing in the general election and accusing him of plagiarism for using lines first spoken by his friend Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

    The Clinton campaign has specifically cited a phrase pulled from one of Patrick's gubernatorial campaign speeches, which champions the power of words.

    Every source I have read has either a Clinton campaign staffer or surrogate as the source.

    So unless other evidence surfaces it seems clear that this was a intentional attack by the Clinton campaign.


    I Found this Posted somewhere else (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:22:40 PM EST
    Sisko came before Janeway.

    That, I think, is all one has to say about our most curious cultural landscape and how race and sex factors into it.

    As far as it's a factor, and one can argue it's not, that people are smarter and more tolerant than that, or one can have a more cynical view of people, if one chooses the second option, I think it's pretty clear America is going to accept a black man as executive sooner than a woman.

    "24" is another datapoint.

    Fineman's comment doesn't surprise me or bother me.

    I'm a Clinton supporter who's willing to be fair about this, and while I think Hillary is a stronger candidate than Obama, I do not hesitate to say she is running on what I call the "Clinton Brand,"  for better or worse.

    She is embracing what Gore chose not to embrace in 2000.

    It is what it is.  Fineman is pointless.

    Shuster though can still go F- himself.

    LOL (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:23:14 PM EST
    I just totally posted that in the wrong Post!!!!

    Media Conspiracy Against HRC? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:55:01 PM EST
    Quite possibly, but a goodly segment of the "liberal"/"left" blogosphere has done much to feed the "Obamamania" frenzy and shares a degree of complicity plus a big glob of major responsibility for whatever is to come.  

    We have met the Ralph Nader and he is us %-<

    This is bigger than the candidates (none / 0) (#55)
    by 1jane on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    The bubble is much bigger than any of the candidates it is more about the Mullenial generatio, born between 1981-2003. The Mellenial generation is much larger than the Gen X generation, less self absorbed, more left-wing, more collegate and more willing to engage in politics. The voters aren't being played as some earlier poster's have suggested. The voters are more informed, better able to clarify claims by any candidate with the stroke of a keyboard.The Library of Congress has every vote, every Bill sponsored and co-sponsored by the three candidates. Get the facts, not the spin.

    They have problems (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:01:18 PM EST
    with the possessive case, too.  But when you're the first perfect generation, who needs to punctuate properly or, in general, learn communication skills (or manners) to impress the generation hiring them?

    Or not hiring them.  Get that fact.


    Everyone's a winner, everyone gets a prize! (none / 0) (#114)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    Didn't Obama say (none / 0) (#66)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:12:14 PM EST
    That Clinton's supporters would vote for him, but that his supporters would not vote for Clinton?

    Yes he did say that (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sas on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:35:40 PM EST
    But I don't believe it.

    The more he says it (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:02:26 PM EST
    the more I believe it may be the opposite.

    What goes up (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:21:33 PM EST
    Must come down
    Spinning wheels
    Have got to go around

    Lest there be any confusion, the above words are not my own.

    another great song for late night (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    thanks, now I have two for tonight.

    Again the parallels with McGovern are obvious, but (none / 0) (#85)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:41:37 PM EST
    there are major differences in the two  campaigns as well as I stated in the McGovern thread. I think Obama is a better campaigner than McGovern. The real trick will be unifying the party. As long as that occurs and partisans on both sides cool it with the "if X is the nominee, I will vote McCain or stay at home" (where X is defined as the speakers non-favored candidate) we will be just fine with either.

    Before I am accused of being an Obama partisan again as I was before, I support the nominee, regardless if its Obama or Clinton. Both are preferable to McCain.  I really don't care which one wins.

    Its just my opinion, but these Obama = McGovern statements are counter-productive. And I like George McGovern.

    It does not surprise me (none / 0) (#117)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    that you choose to make an ad hominem argument rather than discuss something honestly.

    Are you stating that there were no homeless prior to 1980?  Because that would be the only FACT in question here.

    Gosh, I would love to make some nasty comment (none / 0) (#122)
    by derridog on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:57:28 PM EST
    in response to your uninformed post. But I'm afraid what I'd have to say would get me kicked off of this thread, so I'll just think it.

    I love drive-bys (none / 0) (#123)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:05:28 PM EST
    Always so productive and informative.

    You may think whatever you like.  It doesn't bother me in the least.


    your comment in uninformed. (none / 0) (#124)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:11:37 PM EST
    i was involved with the housing crisis under reagan and saw what that man did to cause it. i also saw him turn the mentally ill out of the streets to beg. so please don't write that reagan didn't start or contribute to the housing crisis or homelessness in the 80's. i lay it on his doorstep and furthermore what shocks me is how dense repubs are when it comes to that man.

    vague assertions (none / 0) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:32:20 PM EST
    continue to be the order of the day in this thread.

    WHAT about my comment was uninformed.  The ONLY thing I said was that homelessness did not begin with Ronald Reagan.   I agree, and said so already, that he burns a tremendous burden for his heartless actions.    

    But that doesn't change the fact that homelessness occurred long before Ronald Reagan.

    Stop with the kneejerk. I am very far from a Ronald Reagan apologist.


    well, it certainly is true we have always (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    had homeless. all you have to do is read about beggars and know that many were probably homeless. of course i am not going to argue about when that began. i am glad that you agree that reagan increased dramatically the amount of  homeless on the streets. when i see the repubs almost creating a diety, it sickens me.

    reagan didn't create homelessness, but under him it reached a new unacceptable level.


    Sorry, I disagree (none / 0) (#132)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:14:28 PM EST
    Before Reagan, we had bums, tramps, hobos, transients, vagrants, and migrant workers. They may or may not have always lived on the streets - they'd work for a while and live in a cheap room, them move on to another job or another town, or get a real job and get off the streets. They were not called, nor were they in reality, homeless.

    Reagan gave us the homeless - both the name and the lifestyle. This is a class of people who are pemanently, not temporarily, without shelter.

    "Homelessness" is a chronic condition from which there is presently no real escape. THAT is what Reagan gave us.  


    echinopsia, well we have always had (none / 0) (#137)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:59:59 PM EST
    homeless. if you stop and think about the great wars and displacement of large populations. witness dafur!

    now i don't at all disagree with you about what reagan did. homeless takes on a whole new meaning with him and the policies of the repubs. the fact it is now a chronic situation fills me like i am sure yourself with a deep abiding anger. it makes me think of a question i have seen in dramas/movies, "what have we done?"


    There were not nearly as many (none / 0) (#140)
    by splashy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    All over the place. Turning out the mentally ill caused a big increase in the homeless.

    Not to mention cutting VA benefits. When the soldiers returned after WWII, they had college waiting for them and easy low interest loans so they could buy homes. For the Nam vets that did not happen, which contributed to the homeless problem in spades.

    That was all because of the Repubs. They love to cut social programs, which leads to more homeless, sick and dying people.


    that is absolutely correct! (none / 0) (#141)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:18:02 PM EST
    yeah, well i for one am very, very tired (none / 0) (#125)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:12:52 PM EST
    of seeing obama compared to fjk, mlk, and lincoln. all he is in my opinion is one more man who puts his pants on like the rest.

    arianna like modo at the nytimes each (none / 0) (#127)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    think each word they write or speak is golden. well, no! not so!

    The idea that McGovern was a bubble that burst... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Siguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:52:04 PM EST
    ...is ridiculous.

    He was down thirty points in the polls the minute he was nominated. In fact, to get nominated, the convention was so ugly that Daley and every other major establishment democrat, including the other people running for president, refused to support him.

    There was never a moment in that race when anyone thought McGovern could win. Yes, some were shocked he lost as bad as he did, but you have to remember how bad things were back then. His vice-president was not only cut from the campaign for mental illness, he literally submarined the entire campaign by coining the phrase that "McGovern is for Abortion, Amnesty, and Acid" in a blind quote to Robert Novak.

    Hubert Humphrey, the democratic candidate for president in '68, intentionally helped Nixon win and called to congratulate him.

    Here's an excellent article on the whole thing: http://www.democracyjournal.org/printfriendly.php?ID=6572

    Obama could certainly lose, but McGovern was only able to lose as badly as he did because the democratic establishment abandoned him, in a sense, intentionally giving up an election they assumed was unwinnable, just to insure that they'd remain in charge of the party and not the new radical left.