I've long argued on this blog that the 2008 election offers the potential for a once in a generation political realignment, and that of all of the candidates, Barack Obama is the one who appears to be most consciously pursuing the rhetoric of realignment. Consider this yet more evidence that I'm right:
"Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan, "but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan" allowed him to "transcend" ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.
The upbeat message, Obama advisers say, won't prevent the candidate from stepping up both veiled and explicit contrasts with Clinton, who he hopes to portray as an old-hat conventional politician whose varied positions on the Iraq war reflect calculation rather than leadership.Obama's need to transcend conventional politics is evident by looking at the practical hurdles to his nomination. He boasts best-selling books and magazine cover spreads and -- most relevant to his 2008 ambitions -- is winning the fundraising race in both total dollars and with a record number of contributors. But bundles of cash and good buzz have not eroded what most national polls show as a durable double-digit lead for Clinton, built largely around her nearly two-to-one advantage with Democratic women.
This has Obama relying on a carom-shot candidacy, in which, come January, he will need to exploit Clinton's weakness in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, then have nearly all the bounces go his way in other early contests if he hopes to compete credibly once the race goes national with voting in half the states on Feb. 5.
Obama strategists say for now they are not running a national campaign but are depending on what senior adviser David Axelrod calls "a sequential series" of victories.
As complicated as the Politico makes this sound, I actually think they've understated things a bit in a way that plays up Clinton's advantages. The way the primary process works, there's almost always an early stumble by the frontrunner, opening the door for the briefest of moments to an insurgent. But this time around, there's the potential for that door to stay open a bit longer than normal. Nevada, Iowa, and New Hampshire each present unique challenges for Clinton, and its entirely possible that different candidates will emerge victorious after each event. That would make for an exponentially more complex narrative, something the press detests, while at the same time potentially crippling Clinton's candidacy. She could handle one early loss, but two losses, particularly if they were to different people, would I think doom her.
All of this isn't to suggest I know what is going to happen. (If I did, would I really post it to this blog?) Instead, the point here is to call attention to the fact that the race is already far more complex than most pundits would like to admit.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
