February 7, 2008
Who won?
Surging expectations made Obama’s results on Super Tuesday seem a little disappointing, which is a measure of how far he’s come. I’d be concerned about lost momentum–except for the money. My take from this morning’s FT:
As recently as the morning after his big win in the South Carolina primary of January 26, if you had offered Barack Obama the slew of victories he achieved on Super Tuesday he would surely have been delighted to accept.
From that distance, winning the vote in 13 states to Hillary Clinton’s eight would have looked like a great success.But the count of delegates is what matters, and that will be closer. Indeed, thanks to Mrs Clinton’s wins in big states such as New York, New Jersey and, especially, California, and thanks also to the complex rules Democrats use to apportion delegates, she will probably come out slightly ahead on that measure.
Even so, a week ago Mr Obama would have been thrilled with his performance. But on the eve of Super Tuesday , Mr Obama hoped to do even better. His poll numbers had surged; big endorsements were piling up; and the Clintons’ aggressive campaign in South Carolina was getting a lot of criticism from other Democrats.
Nobody dared say it, but there seemed a chance he might sensationally win the whole contest and seize the nomination this week. California was crucial, but he lost there thanks to Mrs Clinton’s strong support among women and Latinos.
The Clinton campaign breathed again, and Mr Obama had to steady himself to celebrate his wins and fight on.
You can read the rest of the column here.
I just looked at Intrade: Obama at 56.9. Feels about right. (He was a good buy on Tuesday night at 37 after all.)
Very clear and fair observations all. I am relieved in that I have finally found a reliable single source for coverage of the American election year. I don’t have time to mess around reading all the “politics porn” that is invading the net, so your blog is a blessing. Grazie, Clive.
I tend to regard most Republican religious conservatives as being in favour of a prolongation of the Iraq war, but I wonder if that is truly the case? It is probably my misperception.
Do you think that the McCain camp counted on obtaining part of the religio-conservative vote through his clear support of continuing the war?
If you, do you think that it may backfire? Terribly sorry if you have already discussed this elsewhere. Best wishes, KZ.
Posted by: KatyZ, Dublin | February 8th, 2008 at 3:55 pm | Report this commentOne can assume that Mr. Crook’s next blog will be a little more positive about Senator Obama’s chances after his big sweep on February 9. Senator Obama’s message that he represents a change from business as usual in Washington, with which both Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain are inescapably identified, is obviously resonating with more and more American voters, including Southern whites who would normally be considered the last people to vote for a black president.
Perhaps the idea of a black president is also not so unusual in view of the fact that the single greatest American of the last half of the 20th Century, Martin Luther King, was black. Barack Obama slearly has the potential to be, not just a good president, but a great one, far more than the somewhat overrated John F. Kennedy, and the mediocre, absurdly overrated Ronald Reagan (and here I respectively disagree with Senator Obama’s recent remarks).
No one will dispute that Senator Obama is a spellbinding speaker. But this is not because he has mastered the fine points of the art of rhetoric, but because he speaks out with passion and courage on issues which many, even in his own party, would prefer to soft pedal, such as the rise of torture and decline of democracy under President Bush, as well as the shocking increases in income inequality and the power of corporate lobbyists.
As someone who is old enough to remember (vaguely) hearing Franklin Delano Roosevelt speak on the radio, I firmly believe that Barack Obama bears comparison with America’s greatest president of the last century, who was not merely a superb orator, but someone who was not afraid to take on the most difficult problems imaginable and to convince America that there was nothing to fear but fear itself.
For this reason, I would like to suggest to well meaning overseas observers like KatyZ in Dublin that the big story in this election will be, not so much the minor ins and outs of who gains a few precentage points or delegate here or there in this or that primary or caucus (though this is hardly unimportant), or whether this or that voting group reacts a certain way to a certain issue (also not unimportant), but whether America will be able to recognize that, despite the many advantages and merits of both Senators Clinton and McCain (as it is hard to use “merit” and “Mike Huckabee” in the same sentence) it now has a chance to elect a truly great president.
Will Americans seize the opportunity to do so, or will we pass it up in order to stick with business and politics as usual? That will be the big story of this year’s election.
Posted by: algasema | February 10th, 2008 at 3:07 pm | Report this commentI am disappointed that an FT commentator should fall so easily for pure showmanship; your reply to Edward Luce remains unconvincing.
If Obama was as intelligent as you claim, he would have performed better at the debates. No doubt he is gifted — a gifted demagogue.
I have read your column and I would like to ask: so why should Democrats vote for Obama? Your answers are as evasive as Obama’s hollow oratory.
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | February 10th, 2008 at 9:23 pm | Report this commentSir,
As I read your piece on Obama, I had to check the authorship several times. Was this my Hero, the Clive Crook of The Economist’s Economics, the man who single handedly made me a reader of The Economist for two decades? Your article was pure drivel. I vainly searched for what might resemble an evidence based argument, perhaps a Crook-ian styled, crystalline analysis of Mrs. Clinton’s error of freezing mortgage interest rates for five years. Instead, I found: “America is tired and discouraged these days.” Therefore: Obama. Or, “Make no mistake, Obama is a once-in-a-generation possibility.” Therefore: Obama, now or never. Whoa?!, exactly why can’t we wait eight more years! Did you get an economics degree for this? Before this, I had to stumble past this paralogism: Hillary’s failure on the Health Care initiative prevents her claiming any executive experience. Come again? Strange, I would have thought “de-facto” Vice Presidency under the most popular, two-term President -who just happened to leave us with 20 million new jobs and a Budget Surplus - would count as “experience”? Maybe she had a couple of high level coffee klatches with Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers? Does this trump Obama’s senior thesis at Columbia? Certainly to call Hillary and Laura Bush a First Lady is to equivocate with the term. Here is another imponderable: why not give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and ask whether just maybe she has learned from some of her husband’s “personal” mistakes? The experience necessary to be President of the United States might involve a very elaborate disjunction of necessary conditions which add up to a complex skill set predictive of Presidential success. One of the disjuncts might be age related “wisdom” or humility-through- suffering. Mrs. Clinton endured one of the most humiliating public crucifixions in recent political history: everybody she meets on the campaign trail, every hand she shakes knows her husband got a blow-job in the White House. Yet, she stands tall, ready to serve. That is what we call in the U.S. political courage mapped onto humility. Obama has not demonstrated that – yet. Suffering at the Harvard Law Library or voting “present” 112 times doesn’t cut it over here.
Posted by: Jay B | February 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Report this comment