Barack Obama is making the argument to superdelegates and adoring groups of voters that he is more electable of the two Democratic candidates and that he will match up better against John McCain. For now, the polls agree, but less dramatically so than one might expect. But is this right?
Hillary Clinton’s “high negatives” are legendary and, if the Obama campaign has proven anything, it is that there is a hunger among Democrats and Republicans alike to jettison the Clintons from the national stage. However, there are several disadvantages which Obama has.
First, we vote, of course, by the electoral college. So the real issue is which states, if any, does he put in play which she does not. Yes, he has run well in red states, but no one seriously believes that he will beat John McCain in Nebraska. At least for now, Clinton polls better among Hispanics and would therefore have a better shot at states which actually are in play, such as Florida and New Mexico. In the habitually important state of Ohio with the famed Reagan Democrats, some of whom are socially quite conservative, there is a good argument Clinton, not Obama, is the stronger candidate. (We’ll find out on March 4 who runs stronger with Democrats, but in the fall Independents and Republicans will be at issue also.)
Second, there is something to be said for Clinton’s argument that she will not be blown off the stage by McCain. Watching Obama’s campaign speech in Alexandria yesterday on CSPAN, I was struck how little there is still there. The vast majority of the speech was utter fluff, lovely and soaring fluff, yes, but still fluff. The rest was rather bland aspirational liberal fare (“give our kids a world class education”). In an election that season that will last six months or more will this wear thin? (Quite possibly. And now that Saturday Night Live writers are going back to work we can expect some delightful spoofs of his video and political messaging.) On foreign policy the problem is more acute. In a debate will he sound credible, with McCain ready to pounce, that our real problem internationally has been our failure to visit with the world’s tyrants?
Third, his ranking by the National Journal as the most liberal Senator reveals a basic truth: for all of the “bringing together” and “reaching out” rhetoric he remains an unblemished and uncompromising liberal–on foreign policy, on judges, on taxes, on everything. I can think of no issue in which he has bucked the Democratic liberal establishment (other than a meek suggestion that merit pay for teachers might not be such a bad idea). If McCain can break through the din of music videos (or wait until they seem strangely stale) he might just make the argument to the great middle swath of the electorate that there is a reason other than soaring rhetoric why Teddy Kennedy endorsed him: he is an attractive spokesman for the platform of the Left that the country has repeatedly rejected.
So, although Clinton has fallen on hard times and is resorting to all manner of silly argument to retain her hopes for the nomination, we should give the lady her due: she may, in a general election, be the stronger of the two candidates.
In all fairness to Penn State, that’s only 20 students out of a student body in excess of 40,000 so maybe it’s too soon to say “anti-semitism is rising at Penn State.”
“This is nothing short of sickening.”
Yeah, Danny, I agree. Your use of the old “Anti-Semitism Rising” line did turn my tummy. I mean, Danny, son, that’s so Al Dershowitz. So Abe Foxmann. So 2001.
C’mon, kid, certainly you have something more substantive than that?
The only substance Ben David knows is what he studies in his commode.
Halper, on the other hand, shd learn the difference btwn portend and pretend.
Al, you make a good point. However, I think Halpern is doing a service by highlighting the techniques of anti-Semitic groups. I feel his choice of “rising” is the proper word. It may not be a mainstream phenomena at this time, but, it could gain traction by using the typical cover of “justice” and “human rights”
Many young people on campus are idealistic without real world experience. Its important that analysts highlight the techniques of terrorist sympathizers. I have witnessed the exact same techniques in recent interfaith programs.
Sol, other than a school yard taunt, what is the purpose of your post? Asking for substance, while floating on hot air is humorous at best. If you feel that there is too much anti-Semitism to document, that Dershowitz or Foxman have made misstatements, or the continuity of anti-Semitism from 2001 is fabricated, why don’t you just provide the evidence? That would be like, so logical. lol.
correction – Halper.
From what I can gather, my old alma mater, which decades ago when I went there, used to be such a solid school, long ago succumbed to political correctness, and so I can see this sort of crap happening there very easily.
I read the Facebook page. Seems pretty standard Palestinian fare to me, nothing about Jews as such at all.
Oh! Never mind! Here comes the wolf . . .
this is going to replace darfur as the issue du jour.
Sickening, yes. But surprising? Hardly. There have been cadre, fellow-travelers and useful idiots of this sort on college campuses for a long time. Today, most of the pro-Palestinian student groups support Hamas and Hezbollah. In the past, they would have supported the Marxist PFLP or the nationalist PLO.
Thankfully, as Al notes, we should keep things in perspective. These extremists are a very small segment of the larger student body. I suspect the vast majority of students at Penn State (as in the American population generally) either support Israel or really don’t care about international affairs in general and a very small percentage think Israel and the U.S. are to blame for all of the world’s problems.
Even at San Francisco State University, where some very vicious anti-Semitic episodes have occurred (http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/318
), the pro-Hamas contingent is a very small part of the broader student body. They make themselves seem like a larger part of the campus population by bringing non-students on campus to demonstrate. The communist groups do the same thing. Most of the students, rather than being influenced by these buffoons, see them for who and what they are. There will always be a small percentage of young people looking for some sort of identity through campus politics but the vast majority are busy with more pressing pursuits like passing classes and getting laid.
ah, but were they wearing che t-shirts…?
Nobody will care after the euphoria of Hopey Changemas.
Seriously, as an alumnus, I can confidently say that “about 20 protesters” means under 20, includes Dr. Pot, and includes some guys looking for some easy-stoner-protester-chick action.
The Collegian article identified the protest organizer as “Class of 2008″ — translated: recent graduate working at a coffee shop. Shocking. And the photographed protester is from Lock Haven, a college town 45 minutes from Penn State, in an area with virtually no native Muslims (excepting college faculty).
Also, the protest was held at the campus entrance adjacent to the College of Engineering, which has by far the highest foreign student enrollment. In fact, the Sackett Bldg second-floor study lounge, overlooking the protest scene, is quite popular among foreign graduate students.
Meaning that the protest was organized by someone with tons of free time; included students from at least 2 schools, slacker graduates, “colorful” faculty, and indifferent sex-crazed males; and was held in the most favorable location for recruiting sympathetic passers-by. Yet could not muster 20 people.
Can’t say I’m surprised at all.
Even without Jack’s take at #11, I can assure you that Penn State — indeed, probably the entire state of Pennsylvania — is still in the minor leagues.
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2009/jan/12/gaza-conflict-spurs-l-protests/
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005591.html
You’re not in the Show until your protest marches feature “desis” — at a minimum.
The students at Penn State went too far. If they had equally denounced Israel and Hamas as, say, “Brothers in blood, death, suffering, and genocide,” they’d have gotten it exactly right.
” …. The death toll is already more than 700, dozens of whom are civilians, ….”
So he is confirming that most of those killed are Hamas fighters. What we’ve been saying all along. Thanks!
Hundreds of children have been killed and maimed, but they are subhuman Arabs and you are the Master Race in pursuit of the Final Solution, so in your eyes it’s to be desired.
Daniel –
Can you see not difference between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Gazans don’t have Israelis because they are Jews, they hate them because they are the neighbors who stole their land and killed their people.
David