Obamacons

Many people are heralding the Obamacons, or conservatives who are endorsing Obama. Are they the 21st century's version of Reagan Democrats? Are they disgusted with Palin? There are many possible explanations, but I'd like to warn about only one.

They all recognize McCain is going down to defeat. Hard. And the Democrats have a growing possibility for gaining a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the senate. I haven't watched the house races closely, but I'm sure similar things are happening there. So what do you do when you realize that the people you've supported are about to be out of power? Well, everyone loves a winner, but everyone also tries to influence a winner. Andrew Sullivan, perhaps the first Obamacon, will not sit idly by when the Democrats craft health care legislation, or immigration policy, or a withdrawal plan from Iraq, or an economic rescue plan. If he were hanging out with Republicans, his voice would (rightly) be ignored. The Democrats won't have to listen to Pat Roberts, or Thad Cochrane, so why should they listen to the commentators that hang out with those losers? While Sullivan truly does believe (it seems to me) that Obama is the best choice for president, he also believes that Obama should govern how he, Andrew Sullivan, would govern in such a situation. And so he (and lots of other Obamacon pundits, commentators, etc) will expect to be listened to because he supported the winning side. He will claim his support was "integral" to getting the moderate factions of the Republican party and independents to vote Obama. He wants to be a player. And Democrats need to remember this come January, because there will be a lot of people with non-liberal, non-progressive, non-Democratic agendas showing up at the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives with big smiles on their faces and policy plans in their hands.