That is probably too much to hope for. But something is definitely happening here–in the Democratic primaries, that is–and what it is, is pretty clear. Democrats across the country are expressing revulsion at the prospect of Barack Obama continuing to lead their party.
Arkansas and Kentucky held primaries today. The Democrat establishment was worried about Arkansas, because polls suggested that a flake named John Wolfe was running uncomfortably close to the president. As of 11:32 p.m., with 71% of the vote counted, it appears clear that Obama has won, but by an embarrassingly narrow margin of 59-41. And Wolfe was a candidate with little name recognition, no resources, and no credibility.
In Kentucky, something similar happened. Kentucky was arguably worse for Obama than Arkansas, since he had no opponent. Still, the ballot gave the voter the alternative of selecting “uncommitted” instead of “President Obama.” That was enough for Kentucky Democrats: 42% of them voted “uncommitted,” compared with 58% who voted for Obama.
So far, Obama has had weak showings in Louisiana (76-24) and North Carolina (79-21), and squeakers in Oklahoma (57-43), West Virginia (59-41), Arkansas (59-41) and Kentucky (58-42). And Barack Obama had no credible opposition in any of these races. In some instances, his only opponent was an incarcerated felon! It appears obvious that many Democrats are trying to convey a message that the liberal media is unwilling to hear. In 1968, when Senator Eugene McCarthy won 42% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary against Lyndon Johnson’s 49%, it was enough to force Johnson out of the presidency. Moreover, McCarthy was a credible candidate–a sitting U.S. Senator who was the subject of a nationwide movement to put “Clean Gene” in the White House. How can Obama’s struggles in this year’s primaries not be a news story of at least equal magnitude to the New Hampshire primary that drove Lyndon Johnson from the presidency?