Karl Rove Makes a Prediction

With regard to the Democrats, Karl Rove's analysis is pretty close to what I suggested yesterday, except that he expects Clinton to do well in Virginia (which puzzles me in light of this poll):

ROVE: Louisiana, Washington State and Nebraska vote on Saturday and on Sunday is Maine with a caucus. These should advantage Obama because there are three caucuses. As you recall, on Tuesday night he did really well in the caucus states. And then, of course, Louisiana has a substantial African-American population. Washington State does not, but it is a caucus state. Nebraska is a primary and Maine is a caucus.

Then, next Tuesday, we have the so-called Potomac or Chesapeake Primary with 168 delegates. Senator Clinton should do well in Virginia. It should be offset by roughly equal performance in Maryland by Senator Obama and then District of Columbia, which should go to Obama. Again, 168 delegates, because of the proportional rules, this really means that one candidate or the other will literally gain 5 or 10 delegates on the opposition.

Then, later in the month we have Wisconsin, which is likely to be good Obama territory, and Puerto Rico, which is likely to be good for Senator Clinton. But the big one is March 4th, where we have Texas with 193 delegates, Ohio with 141. Both of those should be good for Clinton. And Vermont with 15, which should be good for Senator Obama. But 349 delegates and winning it by the margin that I think Senator Clinton is likely to get means that she is going to pick up more territory here on the 4th than Obama is going to pick up earlier in February.

COLMES: At this point Karl -- this is risky territory, but could you predict who the nominee will be for the Democrats based on what you know?

ROVE: I think it's going to be Senator Clinton because I think Senator Obama's best shots are largely behind him. That is to say, between what has been voted on through Tuesday night and what comes in February, he has had more caucus states where he does well and he has had most of the states that have substantial African-American populations, where he has done extremely well.

Code Pink will not be happy if it turns out that way. That radical left-wing extremist organization bashes Clinton relentlessly for her prior support for the war in Iraq, and, like me, they don't believe that she has really changed her tune. Thus, they dislike her for the same reason that I like her. They don't come right out and offer support for Obama, but I found this op-ed on their site that probably reflects the views of their left-as-can-be membership:

A WOMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE
...
Today, according to political watchers and pundits, money-men and mainstream media, the United States has its first formidable female contender for the Presidency of the United States. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton! As a politically active woman who desires equality in office, Mrs. Clinton's candidacy should rally my support. But sadly, it does not!

What rails me instead are Mrs. Clinton's frequent statements over the past four years in support of the War on Iraq. What ails me is her inconsistency. What angers me is her continued funding of the war. What infuriates me is the ease with which she sends young Americans to fight a war that can force them to kill or be killed. What saddens me is that Mrs. Clinton as a woman offers no more hope for peace than the supporters of this war who are men.
...
Give me Barack and Michelle Obama. This past Tuesday evening I had the good fortune to see and hear Barack and Michelle Obama at the Beverly Hilton Hotel. Yes, I was impressed with Senator Obama. He's charming, poised, thoughtful and highly intelligent. He'd be a popular, soothing leader, working hard to reset Bush's tainted world stage. Give me Barack. A child of the world who directed himself into an adulthood to be proud of.

Give me the Barack Obama described by Michelle Obama as a regular guy, "who can harness the energy in all of us and take us to greater places.... the Harvard Law Review, Constitutional law professor, best selling author, and Grammy winner..."

Moveon.org endorsed the man, so it's not surprising that he would appeal strongly to Code Pink as well. If you are a liberal fanatic, there is simply no doubt that Barack Obama is your guy.

On the Republican side, I took note of these words from John McCain in his speech at the CPAC convention:

I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens.

Can you imagine Barack Obama giving a speech in which he says that he is proud to be a liberal? I can't, but I hope to be proven wrong. His best strategy is to continue right on doing what he doing now, which is to hide his actual political inclinations while allowing the superficial phenomenon called Obamamania rage out of control:

He's got Obamaphilia

It's embarrassing to be among the fanatics of a relatively mainstream presidential candidate.

You are embarrassing yourselves. With your "Yes We Can" music video, your "Fired Up, Ready to Go" song, your endless chatter about how he's the first one to inspire you, to make you really feel something -- it's as if you're tacking photos of Barack Obama to your locker, secretly slipping him little notes that read, "Do you like me? Check yes or no." Some of you even cry at his speeches. If I were Obama, and you voted for me, I would so never call you again.

Obamaphilia has gotten creepy. I couldn't figure out if the two canvassers who came to my door Sunday had taken Ecstasy or were just fantasizing about an Obama presidency, but I feared they were going to hug me. Scarlett Johansson called me twice, asking me to vote for him. She'd never even called me once about anything else. Not even to see "The Island."

What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one. He has not been firing up the Senate with stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war. He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him.

It's an amazing phenomenon, and Obama is not likely to tamper with it by declaring himself to be proudly liberal in the same way that John McCain just declared himself to be proudly conservative. Barack Obama is, esssentially, a Rorschach Inkblot Test in the sense that you can project anything you like onto him (and then fall in love with that projected image). He'd be nuts to tamper with that. After all, it might carry him all the way to the White House.

Meanwhile, McCain and Romney both got to the essence of the issue (at least in my book). Here's McCain:

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

And here is Romney making a similar point:

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This certainly explains why I would never want to see Barack Obama win the presidency. For the time being, I am giving Hillary Clinton a pass on the issue. She did turn radically left on the issue of Iraq when the primary season began, but she also had no choice. Had she made a less radical left turn, she would have handed the race to Obama on a silver platter. As it is, she is in the fight of her life. If she eventually wins the nomination, she'll no longer have to pander to the likes of Moveon.org, Code Pink and Daily Kos. At that point, I'll be interested to hear what she has to say about Iraq.