●Obama Can Win; If He Does, Lets Hope His Sunny Bipartisan T(3)_自考专本|专升本|高升专|高升本|在职研究生-学历教育网

Not only did he pull off an impressive win in lilly-white rural Iowa,
but he won all but one income bracket, and, more impressively, he won
the women's vote, 35-30, despite a mad dash for the ladies by the
Clinton campaign (several media reports claimed that older women went
for Clinton while younger women favored Obama). He won the liberal and
the moderate vote; the urban and suburban vote and tied Clinton for the
union vote, which had been expected to go for Edwards.

As Dan Balz wrote
<http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/04/will_nh_be_obama_...>
in the /Washington Post/, those results bode well for Obama in New
Hampshire:

Compare the states of Iowa and New Hampshire and the landscape looks
far less favorable for Clinton. The reality is, this is the state
that always set up best for Obama, even when he was struggling here.
The demographics and political culture lean more in the direction of
Obama than toward Clinton...

In virtually every demographic category where Obama found his
greatest strength in Iowa, New Hampshire's electorate has at least
as many or more of those voters, based on a comparison of the
entrance polls from Thursday's caucuses in Iowa and from the 2004
Democratic primary in Hampshire.

In a country with an abundance of tuned-out voters, Obama -- and, to a
degree, Edwards -- both understand the importance of reaching out to
voters on an emotional, "gut" level. The Clinton campaign, now running
on the idea that she'd be ready to "govern from day one," is reminiscent
of both the Kerry and Gore campaigns in that she's offering a laundry
list of policy proposals to restore America's "greatness." Just as the
2004 campaign became a contest between John Kerry's wonky 123-point plan
for fixing everything under the sun and Bush's warning that scary brown
people would kill us all if he didn't win, Obama's answering Clinton's
campaign with an appeal to the heart rather than the head.

I should point out that only 300,000 Americans have spoken, and the race
is not over. I don't want to add to any sense of "inevitability" that
might be building out there. The Clinton campaign is familiar with New
Hampshire, thinks it will do well beyond the Granite State, still leads
in the national polls (which were conducted before Iowa) and certainly
has a chance to turn it around. Her campaign's got the resources, and
it's staffed with old pros who know the ins and outs of running a
winning campaign. Although the odds are much longer than they were a
week ago, John Edwards, Iowa's second-place finisher with the
full-throated populist message, can't be counted out entirely either. He
did extremely well in Saturday's debate, and anything can happen,
especially as the media narrative shifts from Clinton's "inevitability"
to voters' hunger for a "reform candidate." The race is fluid.

*Bringing a knife to a gunfight*

But if Obama were to win the nomination, those desperate to see real
change should hope that Barack Obama's touchy-feely message of hope and
healing is nothing more than snappy campaign rhetoric.

Obama's run as the candidate of "change" -- a nebulous slogan with huge
appeal given the depth of the hole that Bush has dug over the last seven
years. According to his campaign's narrative, Obama would not only
change Washington, but he'd do it by bridging the gap between the Right
and Left, healing long-festering wounds, bringing a polarized electorate
together and uniting the country. In New Hampshire on Friday, Obama made
the pitch in what's become a stock applause line in his campaign, saying
in commanding style that Americans "can come together and say, 'we are
one nation, we are one people and it is time for us to bring about
change!'" The crowd went crazy.

Yet the message is as hopelessly nave in the real world of American
politics as it is appealing on the stump, and for a simple reason: it
assumes that the GOP -- dominated as it is by "movement conservatives"
in the Delay-Rove mold -- and it's corporate backers are interested in
engaging in a thoughtful debate over how to make America a better
country. If that were the case, then bridging the divide through calm
words and negotiation would certainly be better by leaps and bounds than
the ugly brand of politics we have today.

But that's not the case. John Edwards' own stock response to Obama's
narrative seems quite accurate:

I don't believe you can sit around a table with the drug companies,
the insurance companies or the oil corporations, negotiate with them
- and then hope they'll just voluntarily give their power away. You
can't nice them to death - it doesn't work.

【免费咨询报名电话：010-6801 7975】

咨询报名MSN:xueliedu@hotmail.com
试一试网上报名
咨询报名QQ：