![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Obama Problama
Dec. 5th, 2006 10:29 pmHe's smart, funny, quick, and right about most of the things he talks about. But
I'm only about 80% sure that a Clinton nomination would be a bad idea. What had been virtually certain of is that she'd have to be a much more personable campaigner than we think she is, or her campaign would founder as quickly as Gephardt's did. And if she is that much better a campaigner, then she could likely beat whomever the Republicans put up.*
And I was sure that there would be other viable Democrats in the race, waiting for Clinton to implode, because I'm not the only one who sees that likely implosion coming. But with Obama's entry into the race, early support and money for all theo others may dry up, just as Koch's entry into the 1982 New York governor's race cleared out all the other not-Cuomo candidates. If that happens, we damn well better hope that at least one of them lives up their supporters' expectations.
Better, would be to have a crowded field going into the early state contests. It may not have helped much last time, but I don't blame the voters, because there really wasn't anyone obviously better than Kerry. Yeah, yeah, everybody will be outraged and insist that their guy was much better (except![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bigscary, who had the misfortune of having his guy actually get the nomination, so we could all see how right his detractors were.) Dean had a lot going for him, but even ignoring the scream, his media skills really weren't ready for prime time. Clark was too inexperienced to win without first having won a war, and Edwards was almost as inexperienced. In retrospect, I think Edwards would have been a better nominee than Kerry, but I'm not sure—not nearly sure enough to change my opinion that the primaries and caucuses are a good proving ground, and we shouldn't anoint candidates without having them go through such proof.
*That, despite my opinion that if Clinton seems on the way to the Democratic nomination, it increases the otherwise slim chance that McCain will turn into a real front-runner, rather than just leading in name recognition, as he is now. The activist Republicans, who have always been inordinately scared of this Clinton, will settle for McCain, whom they don't like but whom they correctly perceive as having appeal in a general election.
- he's not as good as people think he is, because his charisma causes folks to assume he agrees with them on things he doesn't talk about—and we don't all agree about those things, so we can't all be right about him
- he's a long way from showing that he can withstand the flows and eddies of an nearly interminable campaign.
I'm only about 80% sure that a Clinton nomination would be a bad idea. What had been virtually certain of is that she'd have to be a much more personable campaigner than we think she is, or her campaign would founder as quickly as Gephardt's did. And if she is that much better a campaigner, then she could likely beat whomever the Republicans put up.*
And I was sure that there would be other viable Democrats in the race, waiting for Clinton to implode, because I'm not the only one who sees that likely implosion coming. But with Obama's entry into the race, early support and money for all theo others may dry up, just as Koch's entry into the 1982 New York governor's race cleared out all the other not-Cuomo candidates. If that happens, we damn well better hope that at least one of them lives up their supporters' expectations.
Better, would be to have a crowded field going into the early state contests. It may not have helped much last time, but I don't blame the voters, because there really wasn't anyone obviously better than Kerry. Yeah, yeah, everybody will be outraged and insist that their guy was much better (except
bigscary, who had the misfortune of having his guy actually get the nomination, so we could all see how right his detractors were.) Dean had a lot going for him, but even ignoring the scream, his media skills really weren't ready for prime time. Clark was too inexperienced to win without first having won a war, and Edwards was almost as inexperienced. In retrospect, I think Edwards would have been a better nominee than Kerry, but I'm not sure—not nearly sure enough to change my opinion that the primaries and caucuses are a good proving ground, and we shouldn't anoint candidates without having them go through such proof.*That, despite my opinion that if Clinton seems on the way to the Democratic nomination, it increases the otherwise slim chance that McCain will turn into a real front-runner, rather than just leading in name recognition, as he is now. The activist Republicans, who have always been inordinately scared of this Clinton, will settle for McCain, whom they don't like but whom they correctly perceive as having appeal in a general election.
