First, I fidn it very hard to see recent events as Clinton getting off the mat and taking it to Obama. After "Super [expletive] Tuesday" it was widely predicted that Obama would do well the next few weeks and that Clinton would win Ohio and Texas, where she held 30% leads and claimed that those would be delegate firewalls. This was quickly forgotten, however, and now her doing worse than everyone predicted - Obama did very well in the lead up to March 4th, and then turned her 30% lead into an effective tie and a 10% lead with virtually no change in the delegate count (indeed, he could possibly win more delegates than her in Texas once the caucus results are finished) - is being portrayed as a scrappy, come from behind victory.
Second, Krauthammer's article seriously downplays the importance of the loose nuclear materials bill. Not only is this, to my mind, a huge issue, it is generally accepted that the bill would not have passed without Obama. It was being blocked by a Republican Senator and would likely have died without hitting the floor, save that Obama had developed a friendship with the Senator in question and convinced him to stop blocking it. It might be wacky that a single Senator can effectively stall legislation, but it happens (Dodd won accolades from the left when he blocked the bill to grant Telecom companies immunity, for example). In such an environment the ability to convince one or two people will get the things that most - but not all - agree on passed. It might not be a profile in courage, but it's effective bipartisan legislation, which is what Obama claims to be offering. For Krauthammer to dismiss it as not being something other than that is disingenuious.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 20:19 (UTC)First, I fidn it very hard to see recent events as Clinton getting off the mat and taking it to Obama. After "Super [expletive] Tuesday" it was widely predicted that Obama would do well the next few weeks and that Clinton would win Ohio and Texas, where she held 30% leads and claimed that those would be delegate firewalls. This was quickly forgotten, however, and now her doing worse than everyone predicted - Obama did very well in the lead up to March 4th, and then turned her 30% lead into an effective tie and a 10% lead with virtually no change in the delegate count (indeed, he could possibly win more delegates than her in Texas once the caucus results are finished) - is being portrayed as a scrappy, come from behind victory.
Second, Krauthammer's article seriously downplays the importance of the loose nuclear materials bill. Not only is this, to my mind, a huge issue, it is generally accepted that the bill would not have passed without Obama. It was being blocked by a Republican Senator and would likely have died without hitting the floor, save that Obama had developed a friendship with the Senator in question and convinced him to stop blocking it. It might be wacky that a single Senator can effectively stall legislation, but it happens (Dodd won accolades from the left when he blocked the bill to grant Telecom companies immunity, for example). In such an environment the ability to convince one or two people will get the things that most - but not all - agree on passed. It might not be a profile in courage, but it's effective bipartisan legislation, which is what Obama claims to be offering. For Krauthammer to dismiss it as not being something other than that is disingenuious.