I think Hugh Hewitt’s missing the point a bit on Barack Obama (which is rather like a donkey telling an elephant his nose is unimpressive, but bear with me). Hewitt writes,
What Obama has won is the heart of the left, and they don’t care that he cannot win Pennsylvania or Ohio in the fall. They want one of their own. They prefer six months of theater they produce to four years of power in which they have supporting roles.So the Democrats, fresh off the 2004 rejection of an elitist senator from the far left edge of their party, will choose to nominate an elitist senator from an even farther left precinct of their party, only one much less experienced than John Kerry.
Now, I don’t disagree with any of that; but the key here is, the Soros/MoveOn/DailyKos crowd do. First, they think Sen. Obama can win in the fall. Second, even if, should someone press them, they might concede that Hillary Clinton would have a better chance, they wouldn’t care: they believe the current climate is hostile enough to Republicans that this time they have a shot at electing a President who straight out thinks like them. They believe that this year, they have a real shot at electing “an elitist senator from an even farther left precinct of their party,” even though that didn’t work four years ago, and they’re not willing to give that up for a less-satisfying victory (another Clinton). After all, if Sen. Clinton wins, their odds of electing someone as liberal as Sen. Obama President any time in the near future go down; whereas if John McCain wins, they’ve convinced themselves that their odds of getting what they want will be even better four years from now (scroll down to the first comment). With that sort of mindset, whyever should they settle for less than what they really want in a nominee?
How is Obama any more elitist than saw either Bush? Honest question.
saw = say
He isn’t, at least than the elder Bush. (The younger one I don’t think is an elitist, despite his elite education; I think his flaws run differently.) What he is, though, is significantly farther out on the spectrum. Bush 41 was a Rockefeller Republican, closer to Eisenhower than Reagan; Bush 43 is conservative in some ways, but distinctly not in others. Obama’s a purist hard-line liberal. Which is fine, except that it puts him well to the left of most of the electorate. That wouldn’t be a problem for the Democrats if the GOP had nominated Newt Gingrich, or another such purist hard-line movement conservative; but (much to the loud chagrin of folks like Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson) they didn’t.