« McCain the Warrior awoke, pivoted on Obama the Professor, and pounded him | Main | If he can't keep his campaign plane from stinking, what makes anyone think Obama can handle the world's hardest executive job? »
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
"The Audacity of Hope" versus "The Erosion of Doubt"
Canaries and unicorns abound in my latest guest-post at HughHewitt.com, with more thoughts on the big-picture significance of Tuesday night's presidential debate.
[Copied here for archival purposes on November 5, 2008, from the post linked above at HughHewitt.com.]
(Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar)
Step back. Take a breath. Try to imagine how, come December, Tuesday night's debate will look in hindsight.
If Sen. Barack Obama is then the president-elect, tonight's debate will be seen as a nothing-burger. It's a year in which the Democratic Party is expected to win, a year in which Democratic partisans think they have their most attractive candidate in many years, and he's been leading in the public opinion polling almost continuously since long before either he or John McCain officially wrapped up their respective nominations.
If Sen. McCain is the president-elect, this debate will be seen as Barack Obama's next-to-last — and tragically failed — opportunity to seal the deal by delivering either a knockout blow to McCain or by finally, permanently vanquishing the doubts about himself.
If he had not already mortgaged it to the hilt through his past dealings with the likes of Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama would gladly sell his RAW political soul just for the election to be held tomorrow. The opinion polling suggests that he now has a lead in both the popular and electoral college votes. But he had huge momentum and a big lead during the Democratic primaries, too — and still managed to barely win his party's nomination, despite the fact that his early delegate lead was banked and not subject to the erosion of new doubts.
The canaries in the coal mine here are the secondary post-debate headlines, the ones on the "analysis" pieces, from his very bestest of friends, the websites of the mainstream media:
The Washington Post: Showdown Is More of a Letdown.
The Washington Post: New Crisis. Old Ideas.
The Washington Post: Hunting Small Game.
- The Los Angeles Times: Economic Issues Dominate Second Debate, Yet McCain and Obama Battle Mostly to a Draw
The New York Times: Downturn in Decibels, Too.
Doncha know, friends and neighbors, that they want to write "Obama Obliterates McCain: Old Guy Led Drooling from the Stage"?
"He should be leading by twenty points by now — in this economy, after eight years of George W. Bush, this should be our year for a blow-out!" This is the secret whisper of every politically knowledgeable Democratic partisan. They worry that too many late deciders will decide against him.
They're right to worry.
Expect the canaries to take a deep collective breath and begin singing songs of hopey-changitude again, all about how there's a golden unicorn coming down the rainbow. But some of them, in their hearts of hearts, don't quite believe in unicorns, and the thing about rainbows is that you can see them both from the Left and the Right.
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to "The Audacity of Hope" versus "The Erosion of Doubt" and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
(1) Carol Herman made the following comment | Oct 8, 2008 10:14:56 AM | Permalink
It pays to go to Drudge's site this morning. Last night his center headline said: BORING.
Today, he gives access to four links. And, in them, while yesterday's debate had no knock-out blows; Obama got the B+. McCain came in with a B.
There's also a small film clip from CNN. Obama comes off as the nice guy. And, McCain, for some reason, decided to call Obama, at one point, "that man." The one who didn't connect with the audience as a "nice guy" was McCain.
Does McCain think he gets to win because he, and none of his friends, would vote for the Black guy? Again, McCain made no eye contact with Obama. Old man. Pretty much "no sale." Those that want to vote for him haven't changed their minds.
Such a shame to think we're waiting to see "how racist is America?" Or not. (I live in an extremely high end, fancy republican neighborhood.) Yesterday, driving about, I noticed that HERE, the signs were 8 to 1 in favor of Obama! Call me surprised. I never expected it here.
Plus, the republican congress critter, David Dreir, voted FOR the bailout. So? Well, I saw WARNER signs out! And, he's Dreir's democratic opponent, in the race that's upon us on 11/4.
Dueling signs? Nah. Very few people put them out these days. But when you see them? And, then you see MOST for Obama? Here! WOW!
It is odd that the Obamanites seem less confident than they should, although trying very hard to *seem* confident.
They chant their talking points with assurance but assert the danger that 6-7% of voters are *saying* they'll vote for Obama but plan to switch to the white guy in the polling booth. It's as if they're preparing an excuse ahead of time.
Let's hope they are right to doubt.
I appreciate the latest talking point: Sure, our man is connected to a convicted real estate speculator, and sure, his spiritual guides over two decades are racist religious leaders--Protestant, Catholic and Muslim--and sure, he associated with terrorists, but John McCain was part of the Keating Five and was exonerated. How do you explain EXONERATION, Senator McCain?
The comments to this entry are closed.