Dems: Another Fine Mess

As we're all aware, people's mastery of life's learning curves varies dramatically.  In politics, the variability is even greater, not just because they're unpredictable, but because with politics, the common sense we typically bring to routine challenges is often checked at the door.

That seems to be the case with the Democratic Party's approach to the Clinton-Obama conundrum.  Recall that the apparent reason for the super-delegates was to ensure a fully democratic outcome.  The real reason, of course, is to prevent a George McGovern from making it all the way to the nomination--read, gallows--and, in that regard, the super-delegates are a paradoxically un-Democratic phenomenon, especially for the party that lectured the nation in 2000 about fair elections.

On the cusp of two critical primaries--Indiana and North Carolina--the party is riven with indecision and anxiety, as well it should be.  The fraying of the Obama image and the emergence of unsightly contradictions and unconvincing explanations, juxtaposed with the notion of another dual-Clinton presidency and the reanimation of Whitewater, the Rose law firm billing records, Travelgate, Filegate, and a myriad other problems, has party leaders wringing their hands.

The current received wisdom is that if Obama maintains his lead--and, perhaps, even if he doesn't--he'll get the nod.  If he doesn't, the party will implode and the black vote will be a political meltdown with lasting implications.  Concurrently, many Democratic analysts are convinced Obama can't win against McCain, that recent revelations--including his remarkably clumsy responses--will haunt him like a bad performance in a major motion picture.

All of this seems corroborated by Obama's appearance on Sunday's Meet the Press, which was an extended interview that his campaign hoped would put all doubts to rest.  Instead, and despite the fact that Russert failed to address most of the problematic revelations of the past few weeks, Obama's performance was lackluster and his explanations unpersuasive.  The lengthier his explanation, the more eager he seems to acquit himself, and that comes off as politically unsophisticated, as though he doesn't quite understand the value of complete candor--the way McCain does.

He can explain why he sat for two plus decades listening to Reverend Wright's vicious diatribes, and he can put a fine gloss on his relationships with Tony Rezko and the unrepentant terrorist, William Ayres, but it just doesn't add up. 

The reason Obama will lose in November is that he and his party have completely misappraised the American electorate.  Simply stated, the average American is slightly right of center, and the ones who are in play fit neatly into that category.  They may want change, but it's incremental change they want, not the fundamental change Obama, and, to a lesser degree, Clinton, are offering.  Indeed, polls indicating people are unhappy with the direction of the country aside, by large margins Americans say they're pleased with their individual lot in life.

It will be yet another example of the ingeniously naive way in which the left in America has misread the nation, and, with the appointment of three Supreme Court justices in the balance, the timing couldn't be better.