If you asked me today who would win the Democratic candidacy, I would not bet against Sen. Barack Obama. All the advantages that Sen. Hillary Clinton once had have diminished greatly since January. In December, when expected Democratic primary voters were polled by The New York Times, Clinton led Obama in almost every single significant demographic category, including whites, white women, married women, college students, households earning both less and more than $50,000, and both liberal and moderate democrats. Before January, the only significant demographic Obama held strong support over Clinton in was the African-American population.

How can one explain such a drastic swing in support from one candidate to another in a matter of months? Some blame Clinton for running a lazy and fiscally irresponsible campaign, while others point to the electability factor that Obama seems to carry as an advantage over Clinton in an eventual campaign against the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain.

While both assertions may be true to some degree, credit must be given to Obama and his campaign advisors for creating an unstoppable campaign train that is lined with a fine mix of optimism and nationalism. Unlike the 2000 and 2004 election years, moderates believe there is a difference between the three remaining candidates, diminishing Ralph Nader’s likely significance as a third option in this year’s election. Unlike in 2000 and 2004, Obama’s positive campaign is more successful than the smear ads often used at pivotal points along the campaign trail to damage another’s integrity. Obama has claimed that Clinton’s campaign has been playing “silly politics,” a truth that strikes well with most right, center and left voters tired of the petty tit-for-tat political games.

If he can shake off the latest media attacks relating to his pastor’s political stance before next month’s Pennsylvania primary, Obama may be able to ride out the rest of the primaries by taking the high road against Clinton’s campaign, which seeks to use her weathered resume as proof for her readiness and electability. If Obama can make it past the super delegates, who can always throw a curveball in nominating their candidate, he will find his campaign needs to be reenergized and supersized to take on a senior politician like McCain.

If you asked me who would eventually win the presidency, I would bet that Obama’s “feel good” momentum will not last until the presidential election in November. He will have to offer a unifying message to overcome McCain’s proven security resume. While Obama as a person may not lack vision, his campaign and candidacy currently do. His foreign policy to “sit down” with rogue states is naïve and makes security-concerned moderates think twice about his experience. His idea to renegotiate NAFTA is absurd. President Bush’s post 9/11 foreign policy might be irresponsible, but his “fox out the enemy” anywhere and anytime was at least visionary, definitely far from shortsighted. Obama currently rides a fence between isolationism and progressive internationalism. This middle of the road stance will be a rocky road once Obama faces McCain.

Just because Bush leaves the White House with record-low approval ratings does not mean that Obama’s strategy to separate himself from past policy will help him beat McCain. Whether it be Obama or Clinton who faces McCain, the real campaign comes after the Democratic nomination. Specific issues like immigration, economics and Iraq will be important, but offering a vision and uniting Americans will be crucial to take on a sound candidate like McCain.

— Peter Murphy Lewis was born and raised in Osawatomie. He currently works as a professor at the Institute of International Studies at the University of Chile, where he finished his M.A. in International Studies in 2006 and starts his doctoral studies in Political Science in August.

Comments on "Presidential Prediction: Obama vs. McCain"

Comments are limited to 200 words or less.