One of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan, reflects the current beltway zeitangst concerning the Democratic primary season:
Instead, you know where they are, the party elders. They are in a Democratic club on Capitol Hill, slump-shouldered at the bar, having a drink and then two, in a state of what might be called depressed horror. "What are they doing to the party?" they wail. "Why are they doing this?"Is it really that bad? A floor fight at the August convention - now that's bad. But I don't see how this is so ugly for the party. It's all so temporary. What does it matter whether the primary ends in March or June? Sure it's costing money and time in terms of organizing. And I suppose they are driving up each others' negatives slightly. But the November election is a lifetime away in political terms. Obama and Hillcat are getting lots of free publicity. For Obama to get the Wright issue behind him in April rather than October, is a huge help to him. It's still the Dems to lose.
And lose they might, in part because it's hard not to long nostalgically for the comparative "centrism" of John Kerry. While Obama is somewhat a stealth candidate in terms of his record, his associates and pastor would make Kerry blush. As NR said recently,
"A normal liberal politician wouldn’t get near this — the political instinct would be, ‘I don’t want to touch this’ — but none of it offended [Obama's] sensibilities,” the Jewish Democratic strategist said. “He sat there in rooms where Israel was likened to Osama bin Laden. He didn’t walk out.”I used to know a girl in college nicknamed "Delayed Reaction" for her sluggish reaction time in discourse. I'm beginning to think Obama could be similarly named. He was slow on the Reverend Wright thing, condemning his remarks only after a few days of considering the matter, and then later full distancing him after a couple days of Wright's subsequent egregious television appearances.
It could be seen as a good thing, that as a messenger of hope he simply hates to go negative. Or you could say Obama is merely careful and cautious, politically and otherwise, but you could also say that he's slow because he is always having to check his natural, gut instinct which might be sympathy for positions that for most of us are repellant. For example, from NR:
[One], Obama had declined to condemn Carter’s meeting with Hamas, though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had opposed the trip. Two, the Palestinian terrorist group took the unusual step of endorsing him. When asked about the endorsement, Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, was flattered that Hamas compared his candidate to JFK: “We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it’s flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps.” Republican nominee John McCain quickly took note. “We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas,” he said.Delayed reaction, 'eh?
The day following Wafflegate, Obama told the press it was a “bad idea” for Carter to meet with Hamas, as it gave the group “a legitimacy that was unnecessary.”
One of the funnier comments I've heard recently was Dennis Miller lamenting the fact that McCain is treating Obama and Clinton like precious Faberge eggs: "It's condescending!" he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment