When Disappointed Analysts Attack
9:32 AM, Apr 24, 2008 • By DEAN BARNETT
The New York Times' Patrick Healy, apparently drawing the short straw among Times Obama supporters, has penned a column defending Obama's electability compared to Hillary Clinton's. Most noteworthy is this ringing endorsement:
The experts that led Healy to such a startling conclusion? Obama campaign advisers. But hey--if the Democrats wish to hang their White House hopes on "could," I for one won't complain.
Healy offers still more theories as to why Obama will be a formidable general election candidate:
Hmmm - Georgia and Louisiana only "lean" Republican? Interesting. For what it's worth, George W. Bush squeaked out a 58% - 41% victory in Georgia in 2004. In Louisiana, it was another nail-biter, with Bush prevailing by the razor-thin margin of 57% - 42%. I could further stroll down memory lane and document how poorly Bush fared among African American voters and how in fact the Democrats have little room for improvement in that area, but why bother? It's not like actual facts played any role in Healy's analysis. Anyway, I like the idea of the Democrats sacrificing Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota because they're planning on picking up Alabama.
Healy's piece, afforded precious front page real estate in today's Times and already being lauded on the Daily Kos for "obliterating Hillary's electability meme," signals a new movement has begun in the Obama campaign. Inconvenient facts will be ignored or distorted, as Obama's supporters frantically circle the wagons in an effort to distract from Obama's political weaknesses.
Wait, I'm sorry - that's not a new movement. That's business as usual for the swooning Obama-philes. Only now with increased desperation!