It's unbearably predictable, but you have to read it, anyway.

Why?

Well, as Jacob Weisberg wisely noted on Charlie Rose the other night, the only way Democrats will ever know for sure whether Obama is Stevenson, McGovern, or JFK is to nominate him. He may lose, but he's earned the right to find out. And, even if you accept that some or all of his potential weaknesses are real weaknesses, it's not like Hillary (the other half of the binary choice we seem to still be wrestling with) is without considerable weaknesses of her own.

He's the nominee and the sooner it's universally acknowledged, the better the chance he'll have in November.

There are millions of voters 35 and under who will look at this discussion and say:

Who's George McGovern? and/or F**k your Vietnam analogies.

Seriously. That's how little this matters.

Yes, it would be sooooo "remiss" not to parrot HRC/GOP talking points. Gotta keep up those journalistic standards! lol

Red rover, red rover, please roll over... and go away.

The odd habits of "salt of the earth" blue collar workers? Like making ends meet? Like paying for insurance? Like finding employment? Like worrying about the next big repair you can't afford? Wow, those are very odd things, indeed. Normally, I just preoccupy myself with fishing.

One thing that I don't think is being picked up with Rove, et al, coming out to attack Obama now:

Notice their dead silence on Clinton. Now, I know that is partly because Obama is the presumptive nominee, and I know that it is partly to help Clinton damage Obama further in the primary cycle.

But you've heard of the okey-doke? They're trying to bamboozle us. Hoodwink us. If the Dems turn away from Obama for fear of what Rove is going to try to do to him, what do you think they are going to do to Clinton?

You don't think we are going to get Blue Dress, Monica, Cattle Futures, Killing Vince Foster & Ron Brown over and over again? You don't think they are just going to start making up names of nefarious sorts who donated to the Clinton Library?

There are all sorts of places Obama won't go & all sorts of places the Rs won't go right now because that would be good for Obama. But you just wait.

And you know what? When it happens, I am going to laugh my ass off. After eight years of defending those slime balls, I am going to enjoy myself some Clinton take down real good.

I prefer the Dukakis analogy, but in that case, it would be, "You're little more than a taller version of Michael Dukakis, with less eyebrows."

Re: Rove:

The comparison to Stevenson makes some sense: Illinois intellectuals with a passionate following among educated liberals.

Obviously though, Obama brings a lot more to the table than that.

Stevenson was a disaster in understanding the new technologies of television and advertising. Obama understands the internet and its potential for grassroots democracy better than anyone in the race.

Obama has attracted the African-American vote in ways that Stevenson could not have dreamed.

But what Rove conveniently leaves out is a comparison of McCain to Eisenhower. Why? Because it just doesn't work.

The cool, victorious Eisenhower, the hero around the democratic world, was very different from Senator Popeye whose rage cannot be controlled. Eisenhower attracted independents because he promised to get out of the Korean War. Popeye attracted independents before he joined Bush on Iraq.

Look, you can compare Obama to McGovern and Stevenson if you want and you can just as defensibly compare him to JFK, RFK and FDR in his charisma, leadership, ability to make history, and capacity to transform our entire political dynamic.

You can just as accurately compare Hillary to Hubert Humphrey in 1960, '68 and '72.

The fact is that while there are lessons from history, it also does not repeat itself verbatim. After all, the environment this election is taking place in probably resembles 1932 more than it does any of the presidential elections in the '50s, '60s or '72.

Moreover, Obama is an utterly unique candidate who is making history, not following it.

I think one of the most relevant quotes belongs to Peter Hart (I think Josh ran this earlier, but it bears repeating):

. . . Obama goes much further reaching into the independent and Republican vote, and has a greater chance of creating a new electoral map for the Democrats."

That's what Roosevelt did in 1932 -- created a new electoral map -- and in this year in which the economy is tanking, Iraq is still a disaster, and the Republican incumbent has record disapproval ratings, that is what Barack Obama will do this fall.

So Rove's piece is "unbearably predictable"? News flash! Predictable Blvd is a two-way street. The accusations that John McCain is the next G.W. Bush, or a warmonger, etc. are more than slightly predictable also.

Like "ramboorider" above points out, you won't know if Obama is the next McGovern, Carter or Stevenson until the election. For example, they didn't even know that McGovern was the next McGovern until the election (and a little too late).

I've read a couple places on the web where people are questioning whether Hillary's 10mil in 24 hours:

http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/24473/show_us_some_real_money_hillary

I'm sure you feel obligated to start a thread on that as well, or add it to your other thread?

hmmmm?

Slow news week

The Republicans are totally hysterical over Obama. They at least can relate to Clinton because her political method is so similar to theirs, even if her ideas are somewhat different. It's Obama's tenor and method that poses such a threat to someone like Rove.

This ain't nothing but a good sign. It's going to be a hideously ugly and racist campaign, folks, but the Obama train is coming and Karl Rove, well, I hope he decides not to move out of the way.

Obama may not be the next McGovern, but Hillary is the next Nixon.

The analysis by some of these anti-Obama (pro-Shrillary) pundits is laughable.
In the last few weeks, I have heard various pinheads liken Obama as:
the next Dukakis
the next Mondale
the next Jimmy Carter
the next McGovern
the next Adlai Stevenson

Why not John Davis, or Jimmy Cox?
The absudity of it all knows no bounds.
That's why these pinheads reach back to the past; they know nothing else. They can't envision a winning strategy, they can only tell us why we lost, after-the-fact.
Their type of "thinking" (act like Republican-lite), is the reason Dems have been out of the White House so much over the past 40 years.
More than any other states, race played a HUGE role in HRC's victory in Ohio and PA, but thankfully, the rest of the country outside of the south is slowly but surely moving beyond this crap.

Anything that has Rove in a tizzy and Kristol becoming Joe McCarthy is something that can't be anything but good.

Here's the General ad I want Obama to run:

"My opponents have said I'm all talk, no substance, an empty suit, an elitist, a commie, a fascist, a racist, a sexist, a black nationalist, a scary black man, and a secret muslim."
(huge grin)
"I am none of these things. But if you are a scumbag neocon, I am your worst nightmare. If you are an American in need of some hope, I am your best friend."
(camera slowly pans out to an enormous crowd behind him)
"I am the figurehead of a movement of millions of Americans who believe deeply in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people--not the special interests. America--it's time to take our country back. It's time for YOU to take the reins of your democracy, get involved, to restore America's honor and restore the American Dream."

Wow. Long thread in a short time.

This just a softer way of trying to scare us into voting against Barack - not much else has worked so far. Its the MSM version of Concern Trolls.

his alleged inability to understand salt-of-the-earth working folks

And if anybody knows salt-of-the-earth working folks it's Karl Rove!

Really, regardless of what Greg thinks, this is NOT something that I think we have to read. These arguments, as Greg says, are unbearingly predictable and there's nothing new here - I could have written this article for him. This man is a liar, a criminal, and simply not a credible voice anymore. I'm sure all of the myriad new voters that Obama has brought into the party are really interested in the comparison to Stevenson (I'd like to take a poll of just how many actually know or care who Adlai Stevenson is).

Rove. Ugh. Why does anyone listen to a shoulda-been-convicted-felon anyway?

When Franken was still on the air, I loved how whenever Rove's name came up, he would just relate how George HW Bush (a former head of the CIA himself) once said that outing a CIA agent was treason. Enough said.

This is a lot of over analyzing by people with too much time on their hands. The answer is much simpler when you look at the growing electability challenges facing Obama. That folks are asking if he unelectable and how this occured in the past, great. A late, but still not too late.

Really, that you have to ask the question actually answers your question. He is unelectable and you are just late realizing this. If nominated, Obama will fit nicely with the likes of other Democratic Party losers like Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis...

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

Troll Alert. Weaver the Aryan Nation Troll(ANT) has returned.

Reality Check:

Exit polls show that Senator Obama won the Male vote segment in Pa.

Women voters were 58% of the voters, and Hillary carried them, as expected. A majority of Women vote for Democrats in Presidential contests, so they will vote for Senator Obama in November.

The Clinton camp walks a fine line if they are trying to advance this McGovern perception, even if it's by proxy via Rove, since McGovern has endorsed Hillary.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/07/400814.aspx

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=240861

At the time of the Nation article, Clinton was favored to win Iowa. She was at 29%, Edwards at 23%, and Obama at 22%.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA133FF933A25757C0A964958260

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Front-Runner; Like Voters, Superdelegates Have Doubts About Clinton

By R. W. APPLE JR.,
Published: April 10, 1992

"The voters haven't embraced Clinton, so I don't see any reason why I should endorse him," Mr. Eckart said. "Look at the exit polls. People have terrible doubts about this guy, and we're talking about Democrats."

Eventually, most of the superdelegates are likely to back Mr. Clinton, if only because there is no place else for them to go. But they will do so "with extreme reluctance," one said, and the delay and the grudging spirit makes it harder for Mr. Clinton to move his campaign onto a higher plateau, free of character issues.

The Clinton campaign pointed out that Michael S. Dukakis was in much the same situation four years ago, and won easily on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention. But the reluctance in 1988 stemmed mainly from unwillingness to offend Jesse Jackson, who was still an active candidate; this year it stems largely from fears about Mr. Clinton's weakness, not from any fear of angering Edmund G. Brown Jr., Mr. Clinton's only active rival. 'Clinton May Self-Destruct'

So the talking heads and party insiders are as prescient as ever! The only really winning Dem in memory, and they had "big doubts". Sound familiar?

understood properly, the argument is that any candidate representing to a greater than nominal degree the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is another McGovern, or another Adlai Stevenson. So the candidate must come from the successful centrist wing, carry conservative Dems, in order to win...that is why so many of these candidates have done so well (Dukakis, Mondale, ...).

The suggestion that Barack Obama resembles Adlai Stevenson in any meaningful political way -- other than the fact that they were both elected to office in Illinois -- is laughable. First of all, Stevenson's reputation as an "egghead" owed more to the contrast with his two-time electoral foe, Dwight Eisenhower, a beloved war hero whose high-wattage smile and warm Kansas manner would have made almost any opponent seem remote by contrast. Second, Stevenson never drew the enormous, devoted crowds that Obama regularly attracts -- Obama has Ike-like charisma. (By the way, I'm old enough to remember seeing Adlai on televison.) Third, Obama's oratorical style is neither abstract nor lecturing; he does make coherent, logical arguments, as most effective presidential candidates in America's pre-Bush history had to do. Karl Rove's universe has, as we know, been defined by W., so looking to him for explanatory analogies is hardly sensible. And the instinctive understanding by the vast majority of the electorate that we need a president who knows how to have a conversation with us, who is reasonable and also wants to listening to diverse opinions, is so firmly established by now (as a result of exasperation with Bush's dogmatism and obduracy) that the "elitist" charge (based on what? Obama doesn't like waffles?) will dry up and blow away in the first summer wind....

It's true that Obama has a few characteristics in common with Adlai Stevenson. But remember, Obama will not be running against Ike. He'll be running against Yike!