Buyer's remorse

[illusionofjoy]

I have been giving my DJ rig a work-out in preparation for a couple of weddings I've been booked for, scanning my political "blogroll" in-between song transitions. From that, I managed to yank a link to an editorial published today in the New York Sun. The jist: what if Obama keeps sinking like a stone in the polls and the superdelegates grow a spine and act on the buyer's remorse they must surely be feeling? An except:

Mr. McCain is running roughly even in the polls with the presumptive Democratic nominee, Mr. Obama, a time when he is supposed to be way ahead. In early August of 1988, Governor Dukakis was ahead of Vice President Bush by a wide margin. In early August of 2004, Senator Kerry was ahead of President Bush. If Mr. Obama doesn't have a big lead now, it could get pretty ugly for the Democrats as November approaches, the theory goes.

It will only get worse when Messrs. McCain and Obama face off in presidential debates. The public will discover that Mr. Obama, notwithstanding his reputation as a silver-tongued orator, is not that good a debater — which explains why he did his best to dodge debate invitations from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain. Feature Mr. Obama's flubbering on the outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia.

Is all this enough to prompt Democratic super-delegates to re-think their allegiance to Mr. Obama and hand the nomination to Senator Clinton? If you count Michigan, Mrs. Clinton won the reported popular vote in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, 17.8 million to 17.5 million, and won many of the hotly contested big battleground states that the Democrats need to win in November — Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, New York, New Jersey, Florida. She won Massachusetts even after Senators Kennedy and Kerry endorsed Mr. Obama.

Take away the delegates Mr. Obama has by virtue of the endorsement of Senator Edwards, who has newly admitted deceiving the electorate about the adultery he committed while his wife lay stricken with cancer, and the delegate gap is even narrower. Even Mr. Obama doesn't have enough delegates to win the nomination without the super-delegates, so there wouldn't be anything terribly exceptional about the super-delegates putting her rather than him over the top.

I predict that, should events unfold with no change in their current path, the Democrats will lose in an embarrassing landslide this November. While small-minded and petty individuals will try to blame Hillary Clinton, the truth they will refuse to admit is that the fault will lie squarely on the shoulders of Barack Obama and the superdelegates who shoved him into the position of "presumptive nominee."

Comments

[slinkybetty.livejournal.com]

Don't even get me started on John Edwards. I never liked him or his $500 haircut anyway, even before the adultery news surfaced. I saw something on the news that people are saying that he is the reason Clinton did not snag the nomination. Thoughts?

[illusion-of-joy.livejournal.com]

Edwards may have siphoned away delegates who otherwise may have gone to Hillary, but I suspect that those who voted for Edwards would have been pretty evenly split for Clinton and Obama anyhow had he not been in the race - much like they were after he dropped out. Rumour has it that the Obama camp knew about the affair and was blackmailing Edwards - either to drop out of the race after his loss in South Carolina or for his endorsement after Hillary's West Virginia win. There's no proof of this, of course, but I wouldn't put it past a slimy Chicago politician like Obama.

Either way, Edwards knew he had this big secret and it was stupid and arrogant of him attempt to run for president with this sword hanging over his head. Drive another nail in for the Democratic Party in 2008.