As the Dem "struggle winds down," writes National Journal's Brownstein, "the general election choice will begin to come into sharper focus." Barack Obama "quickly made that pivot during his victory speech" 5/6 p.m. Obama: "We can't afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush's third term."
"With that single sentence, Obama encapsulated what's certain to be the core" Dem argument against John McCain -- "that he represents the extension of a Bush presidency that has unambiguously lost the country's confidence. History suggests that that's a strong card" for Dems. In the 20th century, every time a retiring president was about as unpopular" as Pres. Bush is now, his party lost the WH in the next election. "Think of Woodrow Wilson in '20, Harry Truman in '52, or Lyndon Johnson in '68."
"As a former Navy pilot, McCain is accustomed to flying alone." Obama's speech 5/6 "showed how hard" Dems will work to define Bush as McCain's co-pilot during the turbulent ride ahead" (5/10 issue).
Don't Blow It
New York Times' Krugman writes, Obama will "lead a party that, judging by the usual indicators, should be poised for an easy victory — perhaps even a landslide. Yet Democrats are worried. Are those worries justified? Before I try to answer that question, let's talk about those indicators."
"First, votes are affected by the state of the economy — mainly economic performance in the year or so preceding the election. Second, the approval rating of the current president strongly affects his party’s ability to hold power. Third, the electorate seems to suffer from an eight-year itch: parties rarely manage to hold" the WH "for more than two terms in a row. This year, all of these factors strongly favor" Dems.
"There's just one thing that should give" Dems "pause — but it's a big one: the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times." Obama "has an extraordinary opportunity in this year’s election. He should do everything possible to avoid squandering it" (5/9).
Home Is Where The Money Is
Wall Street Journal's Lewis writes about the real-estate purchases of the three WH candidates. "Well-timed home purchases in prime neighborhoods have left two of them -- McCain and Clinton -- with millions in real-estate gains.
"The McCain family owns at least seven properties, including a spread in rural AZ. In the past four years Cindy McCain "has spent roughly" $11M on real estate, buying three condos in Phoenix and two near San Diego.
The Clintons "likely own the most-expensive property among the three candidates," a "stately" home in Observatory Circle that cost $2.85M in '01 and now is worth about $5M. But the Clintons "also once owned the most modest property, their first home together: a tiny house in Fayetteville, Ark., that cost $20,500 in '75. "It has since been converted into a Clinton museum."
Meanwhile, the Obamas paid $1.65M for their Chicago house in '05 -- the rough market peak -- and have seen its value stagnate, if not decline slightly. That same year, the couple sold their Chicago condo for $415K, about $137,500 more than they paid for it in '93 (5/9).
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
Join the Discussion