Numerous people have chastised me for my precipitous certainty that the election was decided last week in Obama's favor. Well, who's snickering now?
They are.
Digby's argument for how this could be manna from heaven for McCain is pretty cogent.
Update: Okay, if you don't dig Digby, maybe you'll like Anglachel's angle -- a more detailed and nuanced scenario, but underlining the fact that, pace my beliefs of last week, this thing ain't over yet. (And, btw, it should be said that Anglachel has been invaluable on the meltdown -- both its economics and its politics.)
4 comments:
I don't think the Digby post really captures what is going on. The reason McCain has an opening is that he comes across as more "Rooseveltian" than Obama who is plainly indecisive, likely due to his cluelessness. He cannot come up with an answer to anything without first consulting his numerous advisors and pollsters. This automatically gives the advantage to McCain. The crisis may be economic in nature, but any crisis underscores McCain's decisiveness and tenacity, and lack thereof on Obama's part.
I agree with you on Obama -- though I don't think McCain seems especially visionary or decisive. But the thing that Digby says with which I agree is that this offers McCain an opportunity to do what I've felt he should have done from the get-go -- to run against the Administration, to position himself as the anti-Bush. Whether he seizes this opportunity or not remains to be seen, but I do think it's a potentially big opening for him, and one I hadn't grasped.
Falstaff, I hope you know I'm not and would never be snickering at you.
That said (and, I hope, believed), let me add to what mike j. said above.
I watched Obama's speech today in Green Bay. Very vague--all "we must change Washington," but what will he DO? He sounded more than ever like a demagogue, but one without a program. Just where will that fly, other than among people who are already members of the Obama Mile-High Club?
None of us around these parts is, er, high on the O-man... and the point I'm making isn't about that. In fact, maybe I'm not making a point... :) But seriously, folks -- I have simply been entertaining the (more or less incompatible) thoughts, in succession, that (a) the sheer size of the financial tsunami had rendered the individual candidates' myriad limitations moot (i.e., that when an economic catastrophe comes, the Dem wins), and (b) that maybe thought (a) was entirely wrong, because, as Digby argues, there may be an opportunity for this particular Republican to squeeze through that door.
Or maybe I should choose door (c) None of the above.
Post a Comment