The strength of Barack Obama, the candidate, is clearly Barack Obama, the person. He seems engaging and open-minded, genial and bipartisan, moderate, humble, and un-corrupt. But if the candidacy is essentially about the man, then it runs aground if the man can’t match the hype. Among the three remaining candidates, Obama is the only one who can truly disappoint his supporters. Clinton is known and unloved. McCain is very well known, and generally well liked. Obama is the one who’s wonderful image hasn’t been publicly tested — until now. That’s the great danger for Obama, both now and in the general election. If the voters examine him closely, and find that the substance doesn’t live up to the billing, then his candidacy will founder. Think of Gary Hart, or Ross Perot — two other presidential candidates whose main appeal was not on the issues, but on character. When they were found to be more or less the same as any other politician, their political careers were forever changed. Both continued to aspire to the presidency, but became objects of derision because their followers were disappointed. Does the same fate await Barack Obama? If voters see him as engaging in negative campaigning, or attempting to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida, or backing out of a commitment to accept public financing for his campaign, then the central strength of his candidacy falls apart. And yet neither can he win without doing these things–after all, he is only a politician. Think Captain Kirk, or Daniel Dravot. The end result may not be pretty. Note: I see that Ed Morrissey makes some related points in an excellent post here.
