Heh.

George F. Will:

Hillary Clinton, 60, Illinois native and Arkansas lawyer, became, retroactively, a lifelong Yankee fan at age 52 when, shopping for a U.S. Senate seat, she adopted New York state as home sweet home. She may think, or at least would argue, that when she was 12 her Yankees really won the 1960 World Series, by standards of "fairness," because they trounced the Pirates in runs scored, 55-27, over seven games, so there.

Unfortunately, baseball's rules -- pesky nuisances, rules -- say it matters how runs are distributed during a World Series. The Pirates won four games, which is the point of the exercise, by a total margin of seven runs, while the Yankees were winning three by a total of 35 runs. You can look it up.

After Tuesday's split decisions in Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton, the Yankee Clipperette, can, and hence eventually will, creatively argue that she is really ahead of Barack Obama, or at any rate she is sort of tied, mathematically or morally or something, in popular votes, or delegates, or some combination of the two, as determined by Fermat's Last Theorem, or something, in states whose names begin with vowels, or maybe consonants, or perhaps some mixture of the two as determined by listening to a recording of the Beach Boys' "Help Me, Rhonda" played backward, or whatever other formula is most helpful to her, and counting the votes she received in Michigan, where hers was the only contending name on the ballot (her chief rivals, quaintly obeying their party's rules, boycotted the state, which had violated the party's rules for scheduling primaries), and counting the votes she received in Florida, which, like Michigan, was a scofflaw and where no one campaigned, and dividing Obama's delegate advantage in caucus states by pi multiplied by the square root of Yankee Stadium's ZIP code.
    
Or perhaps she wins if Obama's popular vote total is, well, adjusted, by counting each African-American vote as only three-fifths of a vote. There is precedent, of sorts, for that arithmetic (see the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, before the 14th Amendment).

(Hat tip: Joe Mama.)

Believe it or not, I hadn't seen Will's "three-fifths" joke when I made essentially the same joke on an earlier post. Heh. Great minds think alike, or something.

Incidentally, Will isn't buying into the conservative CW that recent scandals have revealed Obama's alleged "liberal Reagan" status as a fraud. He writes:

Tuesday night must have been almost as much fun for John McCain as for Obama. The Republican brand has been badly smudged by recent foreign and domestic policies, which are the only kinds there are, so McCain's hopes rest on the still-unattached cohort called "Reagan Democrats," who still seem somewhat resistant to Obama.

McCain's problem might turn out to be the fact that Obama is the Democrats' Reagan. Obama's rhetorical cotton candy lacks Reagan's ideological nourishment, but he is Reaganesque in two important senses: People like listening to him, and his manner lulls his adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness -- the tempered steel beneath the sleek suits.

I think Will is right. The "liberal Reagan" lives, even if he's been limping recently. For all his weaknesses, which have become quite glaring in the last month or two, Obama still has several hugely important trump cards against McCain: his youthful and energetic appearance, his optimistic message, his rhetorical skill, and his ability to raise money. In a very superficial, meta sense, the general election is going to be a cash-strapped, often uncomfortable-looking, grumpy old guy, arguing for essentially the status quo on most issues, against a young, well-funded, energetic, rhetorically gifted "fresh face" who draws massive crowds and argues passionately for change. When you think of it in those terms -- and many swing voters are very superficial in their thinking about politics -- it's hard to imagine McCain winning, isn't it?

Those factors are in addition to the fact that the country is seemingly rather fed up with Republicans and Republican policies at the moment. And, oh yes, and let's not forget the media's adoration of Obama, which will only increase as he gets closer to the "first black president" finish line. (The media has traditionally adored McCain, too, but in this "historic" race against Obama, that'll change.)

If Obama manages to lose in spite of all those advantages, it will be a minor miracle, and the best example yet of Democrats throwing away an election where everything was in their favor. I'm not saying McCain can't win -- he certainly can -- but his supporters ignore Obama's built-in advantages at their peril.

Comments

[Joe Mama]

Obama has the trump cards that Brendan cites, but McCain has at least one hugely important trump card of his own: only Democrats who have run as moderates have won the presidency. Obama's advantages -- "youthful and energetic appearance, his optimistic message, his rhetorical skill, and his ability to raise money" -- are, as Brendan alludes to, superficial in nature. McCain's advantage -- his more moderate record and more moderate stance on most issues as compared to Obama -- is more substantive. Of course, substance often yields to style and appearance, especially in politics, so Obama may well be our next president. But if he wins, Obama will likely have had to convince enough voters that he is more moderate than he actually he is (or has been until now).

[Brendan Loy]

only Democrats who have run as moderates have won the presidency

Yes, and before Reagan, only Republicans who have run as moderates had won the presidency. If a candidate was seen as being too conservative, he had no chance. (See: Goldwater, Barry.) This is the whole point of the "liberal Reagan" idea: that Obama may be able to make liberalism "mainstream" in a way that it never has been before.

The vast majority of Americans aren't as liberal as Obama. They also aren't, and weren't, as conservative as Reagan.

Personality, style, appearance, etc., will trump ideology every time, if they're appealing enough. The big question is whether the combination of Hillary's smears (not ready for day one, elitist, etc.), the viral e-mail hoaxes and smears (Manchurian Muslim, flag pin, etc.), Obama's self-inflicted wounds (e.g., bitter/cling), the free-floating, self-contained events that have damaged Obama without anyone lifting a finger (e.g., Reverend Wright), and the coming Republican & 527 attacks, will so damage Obama's image that his other advantages will be neutralized.

I think that's an open question. Reagan was coated with teflon. So was Bill Clinton, in a way. The force of their personalities allowed them to overcome all the scandals and controversies, and succeed anyway. Is Obama made of the same stuff? We'll soon see. I don't know. But Repubilcans shouldn't just assume the answer is no. You can say as often as you like that this guy is Dukakis or McGovern, but that won't make it true.

[Aaron]

I'm going to be a pedantic killjoy for a second and complain about Will's little joke. There is no constitutional precedent for "counting each African-American vote as only three-fifths of a vote." There is constitutional precedent for giving southern states an extra three-fifths representation for each African-American held in slavery.

I know Will and Brendan know this, but it bugs me because it reinforces that most commonly misstated points of constitutional history: that the morally abhorant part of Article 1 Section 2 was that slaves were counted as "only" three-fifths.

Governour Morris:

"The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S.C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. and N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice."

[/pedantic rant]

[Joe Mama]

The vast majority of Americans may not be as conservative as Reagan, but more Americans self-identify as conservative or strongly conservative than liberal or strongly liberal (note that I'm not talking about Republican or Democrat), even with the current unpopularity of the Republican Party leadership and the Dems being swept into control of both houses of Congress. This is not the result of the personality of Reagan, as strong as it was, but more an indication of the ideological underpinnings of American society. The rule of thumb since well before Reagan is that there are 3 conservatives (loosely defined) for every 2 liberals (also loosely defined) in America. I couldn't find a ready source for this in a few minutes of online searching, but I recall reading about it in "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America", written by two British journalists for The Economist.

[Joe Mama]

You can say as often as you like that this guy is Dukakis or McGovern, but that won't make it true.

You can also say as often as you like that this guy is not the most liberal member of the Senate, but that won't make that true, either.

[Sandy Underpants]

If by liberal you mean-- a person who opposes the Iraq War, high gas prices, record inflation, pretty much everything the Bush Administration represents, and putting Americans first. Then what in the world is wrong with being the #1 liberal?

[Brendan Loy]

You can also say as often as you like that this guy is not the most liberal member of the Senate, but that won't make that true, either.

I don't think I've ever said that.

Then again, I don't recall if you've ever compared Obama to Dukakis or McGovern. I suppose I was sort of using the royal "you" to refer to the VRWC generally. :)

In any event, I have no illusions about the fact that Obama is very liberal -- much more liberal than I am, certainly. I've never denied this.

[Aaron]

Here you go, Joe Mama. This survey goes back to '72 and pretty well supports your 3/2 claim.

On the subject of "most liberal member"... that's great for a McCain talking point. It's also legitimate as an argument. But if we are going to speak of "truth", how about we stick rigorously to facts. Obama was the most liberal Senator, in 2007, as measured by the The National Journal.

[Sandy Underpants]

Sticking with the facts, John McCain isn't ranked on the list of most conservative or most liberal because he didn't even vote enough in Senate to qualify for The National Journal's report.

[Jim]

"and many swing voters are very superficial in their thinking about politics"

Ding Ding Ding

[JD]

"and many swing voters are very superficial in their thinking about politics"

So much truth, so few words.

[Joe Mama]

Thanks, Aaron. I have to admit I'm not familiar with the ideological leanings of The National Journal. However, I would guess they probably have Sam Brownback or someone of his ilk as the most conservative Senator, which I doubt anyone would argue with.

[Herb]

Shouldn't the "don't know, haven't thought" category be lumped in with the self-identified "conservitive" category?

[Joe Mama]

I'm hardly one to pick on others' misspellings, but if you're going to disparage the intelligence of one end of the political spectrum, you could at least spell "conservative" correctly.

[Alasdair]

Joe Mama - perhaps he's a self-smoker ?

[Herb]

There weren't enough "I's" in "conservative," so I felt it appropriate to add one more.

[Joe Mama]

I bet you have plenty of J's.

[Andrew]

I don't think any of us on the right are taking HRC or Obama lightly; we are well aware of the head winds we face. However, the aura of Obama's invincibility and inevitability is now gone, and the GOP can now focus on exploiting his weaknesses rather than spending the first couple of months of the general election campaign determining what exactly his weaknesses are and how to effectively exploit them.

And no, I still don't buy the "liberal Reagan" crap. Obama will have trouble winning moderates against McCain, just like he had trouble winning them against HRC. And asserting that swing voters are finicky and base their votes on silly, irrational reasons is not an effective counterpoint to the reams of polling data that helps guide candidates and their allies to craft winning messages and devastating negative ad campaigns.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Andrew-

While Obama is not a perfect candidate, the fact is he beat the inevitable Hillary Clinton. This was despite the odds being stacked against him.

The problem McCain has is that while Obama is no longer "invincible," McCain is still struggling to make himself appear "plausible" to most Republicans. A lot of Obama's weaknesses have been drawn out in public and, for the most part, I don't think people care that much given the state of the economy and the war in Iraq.

As for McCain, he has many weaknesses that haven't been vetted yet:

Conflict of Interest: There is ample evidence that the Keating Five wasn't an isolated case. There is a story today in the Washington Post about McCain carrying the water for other contributors.

John McSame: He is on the record numerous times espousing Bush's positions on the war and economy. Just playing these clips over and over again will wear down support for McCain.

John InSane: Even Bob Dole can't totally dismiss the fact that McCain has gone absolutely bat-shit on fellow Senators over very small issues. The guy may not be stable. Since the medical records of candidates tend to end up going public, it will be interesting to see McCain's psychiatric profile coming out of Vietnam and what drugs have been prescribed to him (and possibly not taken) over the years.

Angrier and Angrier is obviously not a political advisor.