Well, not really -- but I couldn't resist having some fun with this blog post headline at the expense of my blog-mates Larkin and Steve Crickmore, both of whom revealed a strong anti-Clinton, pro-Obama bias in their blog posts and comments over the last few days.
No question that a lot of Democrats are operating under the illusion of polls; conclusions made by others and served up as gospel, like the polls in New Hampshire the last few day showing Barack Obama with a double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton. Rumors followed, promulgated either by the Obama and Edwards camp or by the GOP opposition, of Clinton folding her tent and returning to her castle a defeated candidate.
We Americans -- both Democrat and Republican and all of those shades of gray between and at the polar ends of the political spectrum -- are such a self-defeating lot. If we don't have Karl Rove to lead us around and tell us what to think we'll let the pollsters like Rasmussen and focus-group pundits like Karl Lutz make our decisions for us.
They don't tell us how to vote, of course, they just tell us what to think about when we vote.
So you'd hope that when we're shown that the conclusions we arrive at as result of the analysis based on the inaccurate opinion measurement systems so prevalent in the politics today you'd think we'd learn from that experience.
Sadly, no... we get results such as this:
As for myself, I'm "hoping" for something other than four years of bitterness and divisiveness that we are guaranteed to have if Hillary is elected. She is a polarizing figure, 45% of the electorate would never vote for her, and her presence at the top of the ticket limits the coattails for Democrats down the ticket.
With Obama we have a chance for a larger victory, a stronger coattails effect and the opportunity to broaden the franchise of the party by pulling in younger voters who could become Democrats for life (studies show the first voting experience typically sets a pattern for life)
Despite a stunning example last night that the answer to that question is a resounding no, Larkin's comment shows that it's too late. He's chosen to make his decision going forward after last nights turnaround based, at least in large part, on the polling data showing "45% of the electorate would never vote for her," despite the fact that one hour earlier we were shown how hugely wrong polls can be.
If the polls saying she would suffer a huge defeat in New Hampshire were wrong, then why aren't the polls suggesting 45% of the electorate wouldn't vote for her wrong as well?
We need to choose the best-qualified candidate, based on whatever criteria we personally want to apply to that decision, and stop letting polls make our decisions for us. If we Democrats can't figure out who the best-qualified candidate is then we deserve another eight years of Republicans in the White House. I can't imagine thoughtful Democrats allowing that to happen, but that's exactly where we're headed unless we stop defeating ourselves and make some intelligent choices.
Barack Obama has, in my opinion, done this country a great disservice. When his supporters booed his opponent at the New Hampshire 100 Club Dinner a few days ago Obama didn't apologize. Instead he signaled his tacit approval for such tactics when he defended protesters who were chanting anti-abortion slogans at a New Hampshire Obama rally a few days later.
Well, "gloves off" is fine if that's how the Man of Change would like the Democratic primary to be run, but I'd hoped for better -- I was hopeful that Mr. Obama would live up to his promise to run a clean campaign of hope -- but I guess when you're 30 points down in the national polls, as Obama was last October, it's time to take off the mittens and come out swinging.
It'll be a sad testament if Obama's decision to do so marks the end of rational thought among liberals and progressives in America during this very critical juncture in our history. We should be building a platform and team that will win the election in November. Instead we'll be fortunate if the Democratic candidate left standing after the bloody primary battles are over will have enough national sway to carry the election.
I'm skeptical... but I guess we'll just have to wait for the pollsters to tell us what to do next. Whatever the result, we won't have Karl Rove to blame this time.
Related: I just came across this spot on analysis by Michael Fauntroy that is screaming to be read and understood by Democrats all across the country.
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!