Reading Paul Krugman's column in the NYTimes today,
http://www.nytimes.com/... where he creates the straw man argument that this was supposed to be easy for Obama, he had all the advantages all along, why is this close? I couldn't help but think about how he might have written about the Giants' inability to put away the Patriots early in the Fourth Quarter of the Super Bowl.
Krugman states:
Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.
Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.
As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.
What’s gone wrong?
If Krugman were writing about the Super Bowl, he would be saying:
The Giants were supposed to march to victory over the Patriots. Once they got the Patriots on a neutral field, which really favors the Giants because it is not Foxboro, there was really no question that they should win easily. But here we are early in the Fourth Quarter, and the Giants are only leading 10-7. Who would have thought that an upstart, unheralded quarterback like Tom Brady, with a Patriots team that barely snuck into the playoffs this year out of the weak AFC, could be this close to the superstar Eli Manning and the All Star Giants this late in the game? Why haven't the Giants dominated the Patriots on every play? At the rate they are going, it is going to take the Giants the full 60 minutes to beat the Patriots, which is a tremendous failure for the Giants and their coaching staff.