Back in February I recall a lot of people speaking about McCain's chances being pretty poor. The conservative wing of the party had abandoned him. Obama was running a remarkably popular campaign that many believed would sweep up even independents. And the faltering Bush administration seemed to be pushing voters toward the Democrat Party. A few of us were still saying McCain's chances were good, but most of the public thought McCain had no chance.

What a difference a few weeks can make.

I am not certain whether the Democrats are stuck nominating Obama or not. But let us start by assuming they are. Despite the glowing press reviews and the claims from his followers that his speech settled everything, I think Obama's "racist Amerikkka made Rev. Wright evil" defense probably drove away a lot of the moderates he needs to win the general election. Even among Democrats, I think his reversion to racial grievance language may eventually drive off those who were buying into his talk of racial healing. In short, by not offering a better accounting of his actions, I think Obama has managed to alienate most of those whose votes he needs to win*.

Even if the Democrats can kick Obama aside and nominate Clinton, the picture doesn't get much better for them. Clinton will not have the scandal baggage Obama does, as the scandals in which she was involved have largely dropped from public consciousness (though some, such as the Chinese donations, may be revived in a general election), but she has other negatives. First, many people, in both parties, are just unwilling to put another Clinton or Bush in the White House. Even some who liked Clinton or Bush are unwilling to create what appears to be a pair of political dynasties. Second, there will be the die hard Obama supporters who will reject anyone not their candidate. Third, there are those who just hate Hillary herself, who will not vote for her no matter what the alternative is. Finally, there is Bill Clinton. There are a lot of voters who might vote for Hillary to get a third term of Bill Clinton, but there are a lot more who would vote against her for precisely the same reason. Given all this, plus the possibility of reviving both Hillary's scandals, and those of the Clinton presidency, I think Hillary has no more chance than Obama.

So, what does this all teach us? Three things.

First, the pundits, including me, should beware before making predictions. No matter how certain a win or loss may seem, nothing is certain until the last vote is counted (and the Supreme Court rules, in the case of 2000). All I have said here, for instance, applies only at this moment. Things could change tomorrow and all of this could be irrelevant. For the moment, what I wrote seems true, but McCain's fortunes are not carved in stone, tomorrow could bring a complete reversal of these circumstances.

Second, the superdelegate system is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it may provide the Democrats with a way to reject Obama should he become too mired in scandal. On the other hand, as the race is so close, a brokered convention could do the same, and with less fallout. If the superdelegates appear to be anointing a candidate against popular opinion, it could lead to a voter revolt and huge reduction in turnout. So, while it provides a safety valve for the Democrats, other solutions might provoke less resentment.

Third, both parties should be wary of a candidate who has too much popular enthusiasm. Often such fawning support tends to make supporters, and even others, less careful in their evaluations. Obama had been running for months before the Rev. Wright story broke, yet no one had even raised the issue. That would not have happened with a less popular candidate**. Questions about Romney, Huckabee, even Ron Paul (who also had a somewhat adoring throng behind him) had been raised and settled before anyone even thought to ask about Obama's church. That is the outcome of excessive public adoration.

Which, I suppose, is the best lesson we can learn. When everyone is praising a candidate excessively, take an extra look at him, see what problems you can find, as it is likely no one else is even trying.

----------------------------------------------

* I have been saying for a long time that Obama has refused to take any stands. Who would have thought hsi first real stand would be such a campaign losing one?

** In Obama's case it is hard to separate the reasons behind his kid glove treatment. The press generally treats Democrats better than Republicans, and they are also excessively sensitive about raising questions which may be deemed racist. So it is hard to tell if Obama was not questioned due to public enthusiasm, press partisanship, or fears of being branded with the scarlet R. All I can say is that Jesse Jackson is just as black and just as much of a Democrat, yet his affairs were not kept out of the press the same way Rev. Wright was, so Obama's popularity definitely played some role here. (Actually, this may be a topic for another essay, why the press never noticed Wright.)