The New Willard

Clinton won Pennsylvania today (as expected), but that doesn’t amount to much – she still can’t win:

The dynamics of the race are the same as they’ve been for more than two months. Obama is the front-runner, and California-based Democratic consultant Dan Newman points out that is more important the closer the campaign comes to the end of the primary season.

“He’s content to essentially run out the clock with his narrow lead, while she needs something dramatic to happen,” Newman said. “A one-run advantage in the first inning isn’t a big deal, but a one-run lead in the ninth looms large.”

Clinton now faces a dwindling number of contests, and she’s at a steep financial disadvantage.

However, should Clinton be our candidate?

In Pennsylvania, Clinton won with the support of whites, women and older voters, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks.

Clinton won three very important demographics – three demographics that will be key come November. Additionally, periodicals like Canada’s National Post are highlighting a very important issue: is Obama iconic enough of America to be president?

If he becomes the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, Sen. Barack Obama will lose the general election for this reason: When the smiles and platitudes are set aside, Obama’s campaign and the philosophy of his cadre amount to one big put-down of America.

Anomalous among Western leaders, the president of the United States serves as head of both state and government. Moreover, he is elected directly by the voters, unlike in a parliamentary system whereby a leader attains power through the success of his party. As such, the president represents something very personal to Americans. He is, for four or more years, the personification of their country, embodying the aspirations and goodness of the land that they love. A president may disappoint after assuming office, but America is not in the habit of electing candidates who hold their country in contempt.

Not only have the comments of Obama’s wife, Michelle (who has referred to America as “downright mean” and stated that she was not proud of her country until her husband started winning primaries) and his minister, Jeremiah Wright (whose hateful, anti-white, anti-American diatribes are available for sale in Obama’s church, or for free on YouTube) revealed the tired, leftist scorn for America that Obama represents — the Senator’s own remarks have exposed this ugly, unelectable side.

Here’s the thing: both attacks on Obama fail. On the demographics debate, all three demographics carried by Clinton will still probably vote for Obama in a general election; perhaps they will vote for him in smaller numbers, but he should still carry them. As important, is the fact that Obama has energized a demographic of voters that simply used to not vote:

Underscoring the race’s excitement, more than one in 10 voters Tuesday had registered with the state’s Democratic party since the beginning of the year. And about six in 10 of them were voting for Obama.

Now, onto The National Post-type of attack on Obama: that he’s too anti-American to win. This is an important issue, but the Post gets it wrong. Please see my previous post “Finding our Narrative,” which examines the new pro-American narrative created by the Democratic nominees – it’s realistic and impassioned. The narrative that Obama is pushing is this: Bush and his cronies have made America weak and that’s not the way it should be; we’re going to make America great again.

Additionally, the analysis coming from the Post is a bit premature. The Post is trying to create a parallel between the initial missteps of the Kerry campaign in 2004 with the “missteps” of the Obama campaign and the parallel simply doesn’t work. Obama, unlike Kerry, answers criticism without flinching and makes those that criticize him look foolish and shallow.

However, the issues that The National Post brings up will be an issue in the general election – I just think that Obama, unlike Kerry, can beat it.