On Christmas day 2007 in Washington DC I participated in a "Who will be contesting the presidential election?" parlour game and said that Barack Obama would beat John McCain. Admittedly the sole American had retreated to have a nap while half a dozen Brits confidently prognosticated upon all this... But still...
Nonetheless, here's young Yglesias:
I think the college educated men who dominate punditland have spent a lot of time missing the fact that there actually are enthusiastic Clinton fans out there -- they're just mostly working class women and thus mostly not in the room when this CW gets hashed out. On top of that, I think Clinton's succeeded in managing the expectations savvily. If she wins anywhere at all between now and March 4, that counts as a win for her, then Ohio is mildly favorable ground for her and Texas is extremely favorable ground. That, I think, will seal it for her as the anti-Obama backlash brewing in the press hits full stride.
This is wise and depressingly close to being convincing,,,
The Clintons still stand a good chance because they are much, much corrupter than O. In that sense it's the Clintons who are the heirs to the Kennedys.
Posted by: dearieme | February 12, 2008 at 09:29 AM
In proclaiming her toughness and then failing to crush Obama on Super Tuesday, Clinton has unwittingly made Obama look tough himself. This dissolves one of Hillary's core arguments for herself.
Obama has battled the Clinton juggernaut to a draw, and the momentum is in his favor. As this continues, and more people turn their attention to him, he looks more presidential and less like Hillary's caricature of him.
Yglesias may be right, but I doubt it.
Posted by: Hal | February 12, 2008 at 06:54 PM