Si se puede !

= "Yes, we can ! "

I don't know. If that's Obama's new slogan, while it might earn him some primary votes, it is liable to cripple him mightily if he makes it to the general election. Particularly in tight economic times, I would think.

Rightly or wrongly depending on your view, illegal immigration is an important issue to conservative voters, especially in the heartland and West -- the Red States that haven't yet been swamped into submission.

It's a gamble sure, and may yet pay off in the short run, but I'm not sure adopting the Spanish slogan of the immigration movement is the best response for Democrats at this time. Particularly if McCain is not the eventual Republican nominee. (He still fully supports the Bush Iraq plan, remember, hasn't recanted on the wiseness of America's decision to invade.)

Regardless, I honestly don't think it's the Builder Bob coalition he's courting here, Glenn...

----------------
Even if the more literal translation of the Spanish phrase is "Yes, it can be done!", I strongly suspect he is courting the legal voters in Hispanic coalitions with this one. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but again, it may come at a high cost come general election time, given the current climate on illegal immigration and the recent political associations with the phrase.

After AeroMexico, a Mexican airline, had filed a trademark application for "Sí se puede" with the US Trademark Office, lawyers for the United Farm Workers defended the phrase as the intellectual property of the UFW. After litigation, AeroMexico agreed not to use the phrase and abandoned its trademark application.[1]
...
The phrase drew widespread political and media attention as a rallying cry during the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests.

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

Meanwhile,
Sullivan is quoting the Latin in describing Obama: "Per ardua ad astra, baby!" * ("though struggles, to the stars!")

I just wish he'd explain why he thinks loyal Republican voters will be so eager as he to discard all their previously held conservative ideas to vote Obama in the general election. To punish the Bush/Cheney administration? Because they won't fully support the eventual Republican nominee? Something tells me if they feel that strongly, more would just stay home rather than vote for Obama's rhetoric and liberal policies.

Down the page, in fact, Sullivan quotes this nugget, gleaned from poll data (so take it for what it's worth):

Hillary got the lion’s share of support of voters who had “positive feelings” about the Bush administration: 42% to Obama’s 27%.

Hm... wouldn't that suggest that it is she, and not he, who would garner more support in the general election should voters realistically be thinking about foreign policy and an eventual Iraq withdrawal? I would think so... (Unless you suspect the conservatives' primary considerations to factor are that she's a hated woman -- albeit more a moderate on the Iraq issue -- and he a man, calling for immediate troop withdrawal.)

Again, I wish Sullivan would explain why he believes so strongly that so many American voters are like him -- that the independent and Republican support Obama has seen thus far will deliver him past his liberal impulses in the primary, allowing him to score general election votes. I don't think most party folks change their loyalties so easily, even when their current leadership has so mucked up the job.


* I know everybody is looking ahead to California, but somehow I don't think trying to play on Ah-nold's lines is going to do the trick, either... baby!