Great to read something sane.

Lmao, if David Brooks had influence with actual voters, I'd care.

Seriously Ezra, you can't really be this stupid. of COURSE Brooks was going to do this. He isn't an honest broker, he's a dishonest hack. This was always his plan: Pretend to support Obama, and then back McCain in the general.

He had probably assumed Hillary would be the nominee, and that have made this cleaner, but it works with Obama as the nominee too. He's trying to give moderate-Republicans cover to move back to McCain.

Don't think for a moment that David Brooks was ever serious. He's just a hack who saw trouble in Republicans support for Obama, and wanted to try and head it off.

If it was only David Brooks, i might concede your point but its not just brooks.

David Ignatius penned an article this sunday comically stating "oh on second thought. I have no idea what Barack Obama stands for"

I guess Ezra didn't realize that these conservative whores weren't serious before this? I mean, it's always been plain as day.

If Hillary Wins, shake your head and say that you would have liked to have supported the Democrat, but Hillary is just a bridge too far.

If Obama wins, use your earlier support to give you credibility in your attacks. Pick some random flaw, shake your head, and say Obama just isn't as experienced or as brave as McCain.

If Ezra thinks this is a sign of anything other than the fact that Obama probably has the nomination, he's being played for a fool.

The fact that anti-war republicans are voting for McCain makes me ask if any positions of the candidates matter much in elections. Is it mostly about name recognition?

Do the words "as was entirely inevitable" mean something different in your world?

The fact that anti-war republicans are voting for McCain makes me ask if any positions of the candidates matter much in elections. Is it mostly about name recognition?

Not necessarily name recognition as much as personality. After all, I am sure plenty of anti-war Democrats are backing Hillary(just like some had been backing Edwards).

Lol, a war hawk hates Obama?

Seriously? you're offering up David Ignatius as a font of wisdom? On a blog?

Got any more pro-bush Washington Post employees you want to throw out there?

Brooks appears to be drinking raspberry daiquiris with Maureen Dowd. That's a nasty, spiteful, queenish piece of writing he's dumped out.

And since he's an early adopter of received conservative 'wisdom', expect plenty to follow.

Lol, I see that Ezra ackowledged it was inevitable, but I don't think he understands why.

I mean, most Republicans will eventually side with McCain for ideological reasons. But many legitimately believe that OBama is an acceptable person for President. There was simply no way outright warhawks like Ignatius and Brooks ever honestly agreed with Barack Obama. Not after saying he was willing to sit down with our enemies, and not after opposing this war. I don't think Ezra really understands that these people have been dishonest to begin with.

Mary Chapin Carpenter?

The amusing thing about this thread is that none of Soullite's comments contradict the point of Ezra's post in any way.

The point isn't that he turned. That was expected. The point is what it will mean for the general when they all do. That's also inevitable. The only one's not understanding this are Democratic prmary voters living in their own version of faith based analysis.

I mean, most Republicans will eventually side with McCain for ideological reasons.

It's not even ideology -- it's which team he's playing for.

I remember sitting in Fenway, roundly booing Manny Ramirez in the '99 playoffs. It wasn't because he batted .056 either -- he was playing for the Indians.

Close tag -- oops

The only consequence of this for the general election is that conservative Republicans will vote for John McCain. If you managed to delude yourself into thinking otherwise, this might be a shock. But Republicans will always do what they are told and support their nominee. I doubt anyone was under the impression that the media would be 100% on the side of Barack Obama either, no matter how much some of you like to think we are. We know full well the media will most side with john McCain eventually, we just don't think it's going to make the difference you all think it will.

There will probably be a real media backlash against Obama at some point, but this isn't it.

"The point isn't that he turned. That was expected. The point is what it will mean for the general when they all do. That's also inevitable. The only one's not understanding this are Democratic prmary voters living in their own version of faith based analysis."

Posted by: akaison

I'm a Democratic primary voter. I understand. Just what is it that we should be doing about it?

Davis, If the Democratic candidate where suggesting we invade Iran and give their treasure to David Brooks and his friends, Brooks and his pals would be voting Democratic straight down the ticket.

Ah, but then he wouldn't be a Democrat, at least in any meaningful way.

LoL, Anonymous. I'm a bit over the top sometimes. You're right though, I would probably find it hilarious if I hadn't wrote it too.

You say you understand, but then offer no proof other than saying that you do. If you understood, you certainly wouldn't be asking me what to do about it. You would have included that in your calculus for picking a nominee, and certainly wouldn't confuse, as many have a mostly glowing primary coverage run with what you could expected in the general. If you 'understood' you would have been holding candidates feet to the fire rather than idolizing them precisely because you would have know this was coming. And even if not for these reasons- maybe because you want to hold them accountable. Each cycle we create the dynamics that provide for our pols defeat. Our own pscyhology as voters is the issue, not just that of our pols.

re GE

The press will turn on Obama in the GE. When given a chose between The Maverick and Hope, they will choose the Maverick because he's bene on the stage longer and the narrative is much more entrenched. They have more vested in the Maverick than they do in Mr. Hope. We can win, but we will need to go negative to brutally define The Maverick as Mr. 100 Years War, which creates a problem when your main message is hope and a change to post partisan. It's a difficult straight jacket from which to navigate. The last time we tried it- 1992- we won with only a plurality and a strong third party candidate.

Akaison,

I agree that the press will turn on Obama, but it is already happening. I think that before the democratic nominee is decided. I think that the DNC and liberal pundits need to paint McCain as a hypocrite with respect to public financing, warmongerer. Tie him to Bush as much as possible. If there were any videos showing him having an outbust in a offical setting that would also be helpful. There is a way to eviserate your opponent without looking nasty. Obama is already doing that. He gets away with a lot of crap.

Only because he has come up against others whom the press are predisposed to not like in their narratives. He's not been tested against a McCain type narrative which is equally media driven and positive. In other words, it's a like against a like, not a like against a dislike. His ability to "go negative," which he will need to do will be very limited.

PS

When I think about the narratives, it actually by their own terms provide McCain an advantage. A maverick is allowed to "shot from the hip" about the "truth" about the other guy (even if McCain is lying) but a guy promising post partisan politics has less room in which to move. That's just how the narratives will probably play out emotionally.

Obama has a major problem which is that his appeal has nothing to do with his differences on the issues with McCain. We are told only Obama can defeat McCain because only he can get the swing votes key to winning. If this is true, that Obama can beat McCain, but McCain can beat Clinton, then this election has NOTHING to do with the issues progressives care deeply about. If Obama attempts to make it about that he could very well alienate many of those who might be inclined to support him now. McCain will paint him as too liberal for the country, as all talk and no action on his claims of working with the other side (unlike McCain who actually has a record of this), and he will undercut Obama's authencity because Obama will be forced to go against the very things he has run on so far- unity and being positive, not negative. At the end of the day Obama is going to after to argue that people simply need to reject the 8 years of Bush-Cheney more than they need to vote FOR him. Everything he has stood for so far will be put on a back burner before he is even inagurated. Not a pretty picture.

Akaison,

I think that Obama can still rely on the unity theme but it must be presented against the backdrop of the last eight years. After all Bush has been a polarizing figure, who has divided this country. And McCain has been complicit in that regard. That is not to say that it won't be difficult because McCain had crossed the isle whereas Obama hasn't really done so himself.

I want to emphasize that Obama can't ditch the unity theme because of his race. Especilay in light of Michelle's stupid comment yesterday. He really needs to emphasize this.

"I want to emphasize that Obama can't ditch the unity theme because of his race. "

This comment is why his candidacy if Democrats weren't engaged in a mass delusion (and Clinton's) are problematic. They limit our ability to not only define our candidate, but also attack the GOP opponent. There maybe a reason for the straight jacket- but thats what it is- a limitation on our ability to win.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with having choosen a black candidate or choosing a woman candidate. I just would have preferred an honest discussion about what that means for the GE along the way so that we would be ready for the attacks. We can't expect the rest of the electorate to have engaged in the fantasy I saw during this primary, where an honest discussion of this issue was met with attacks.