The victors, pt. 2: Clinton and Obama
After the 24 Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses, I don't think either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are inevitable winners for the Democratic nomination, but it is Clinton's to lose--provided she doesn't run out of money.
What is saving Clinton so far, I think, is her strong support from women and Hispanics, but also a general unease among some Democrats--shell-shocked after eight years of George W. Bush--about venturing beyond the known world. To them, Obama embodies more risk than they are willing to take in their desperate quest to restore the pre-Bush country they remember. If they sail off the edge of the world with Capt. Obama, will they land in heaven or hell? They don't want to find out. Clinton represents that pre-Bush America to them. She is a known quantity, good on most issues, and they don't much care what Bill did or didn't do.
That, I think, is why the rapturous crowds attending Obama's appearances in the days leading up to Super Tuesday didn't necessarily translate into votes. That and the fact that more of his support is among young people, who don't always make the effort to vote that their elders do. I had earlier posted a story from C/Net about how Clinton had surprisingly trounced Obama in Silicon Valley, but one of my readers provided me with actual voting results from the California Secretary of State to show that Obama did in fact carry the valley by a comfortable margin.
Obama mania could still carry the Illinois senator to the nomination--he isn't that far behind Clinton in the delegate count--but he has to do a better job of convincing the Democratic wounded that he has what it takes to succeed at governing, not just making inspiring speeches. I was a John Edwards supporter (Dennis Kucinich was my really secret love), but I'm almost to the point of making that leap of faith and going with Obama.