No She Can't!

Paul Krugman makes a compelling argument in the first part of his column today when he points out that, "A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. “Yes we can” has become “No she can’t.”" However, he goes on from there to engage in his continued advocacy for the Clinton campaign by attacking Obama for being light on substance (and subsequently criticizing any substantive plan he proposes.)



This would all be well and fine except that, while substance matters, there is obviously something about the Clinton campaign that is registering with voters in middle America, Krugman is too bright to believe that substance truly matters when RUNNING for President. Policy papers and proposals and the like will accomplish nothing when the winner gets to the White House. People vote more on the amorphous concept of "leadership ability" and in that category, Obama seems to be leaps and bounds ahead of Clinton, as has been demonstrated by his bringing a new group of voters together and in fact, bringing out new voters. Clinton, as her campaign proudly proclaims, is successful with the old school democrats, and old democrats.



There are real, legitimate doubts being raised about Obama's candidacy, with his failure to win primaries in the big states. The question however, seems to me no different than it was in Iowa and New Hampshire. Should the Democrats go with the candidate who will lock up their base and their core constituencies and possibly win with 50 + 1? Or, should they gamble a bit and nominate the guy who will bring young people and new voters to the polls to vote for the party, and likely still lock up the core constituency since they are "core" precisely because they ALWAYS vote for the Democratic candidate? It is a gamble because- what if he does turn off the white, middle and lower class voters on issues of race? What if he does send them over to John McCain?



It seems to me the gamble is worth it. This is an election year designed for the Democratic party to make huge gains and Republicans know it. They also know that those gains will be smaller with "high-negative" Hillary at the top of the ticket. Hillary can win. Obama can win. If Obama wins, it will likely have a dramatic, positive effect up and down the ticket, due to his introduction of new voters and young people into the system. Although nominating Obama may be slightly more risky, it seems to me that with the "catastroclusterfudge" that is the Bush presidency, the Democrats are playing with house money and ought to be willing to take the gamble in the hopes of striking it big.