That is my opinion of the state of the U.S. today, and I would be happy to be proven wrong. However, I fear that the Democratic Party will believe the the press clippings they're reading about a "new day in America" and similar bullshit, nominate this guy, and get slaughtered in a general election through smears and negative campaigning. Get slaughtered in the South, and in the Heartland. Get slaughtered so badly that the Senate goes Republican, and maybe the House, and the Dems are left to console themselves with the thought that they "made history". The troops are still in Iraq, the nation still in decline, but they went down "fighting the good fight".
But the good fight, as someone once said, is one you win, and at this particular juncture in American history, the candidate most likely to win is the "safe" choice, the "establishment choice", which is of course Hilary Clinton. I hope for the sake of the planet that the U.S. Democratic party doesn't find yet another way to bungle a general election.
(PS. the other issue with Obama is of course all the silly Idealism surrounding his candidacy. It won't take much of a "revelation" to prick that balloon, and should it collapse, it will collapse entirely and all at once. Just remember: there are Republican operatives going through his trash even now. With Clinton, on the other hand, there is very little left unknown.)
* Canadian Tar-heel says in the comments that:
"On that point, your contention in the first paragraph (ie, that his parents are/were Muslim) is incorrect. Obama was raised by his mother in Hawaii, who was a white agnostic from Kentucky. His father left them when he was young and was agnostic too, despite his Muslim background."
His parents were agnostics? Oh oh.
43 comments:
Obama can't win because he did hard drugs casually enough to call it, "scoring some blow" There's a reason the Republicans want him to win.
First ad;
Latin families crying as they describe losing loved ones to the drug war. Then the caption reads; "Obama calls it scoring some blow. We call it supporting drug cartels."
Second Ad;
A shot of a small hut in Africa. Obama's grandmother lived in this hut with no, health care, nor water and no electricity, while he bought himself a 1.9 million dollar house. If he won't make sure his grandmother has health care housing and utilites why would he care if you don't."
Third ad;
Children playing in a school playground. caption; "If you wouldn't vote for a cocaine user to be on your children's school board, why would you vote for one to be President?"
That's why he will never be President even if the Democrats allow 17 year olds and independents to commit political suicide and nominate him. Not because he's black because of his cocaine use, lack of experience, questionable record etc etc etc.
He's not very good at defending himself either. He gets flustered and fast.
the first comment says hes black your stupid....well thats what obama is hoping for, to shut up anyone who looks at reality to the american voters, I do believe that there is not anough voter in american that will vote for a black man let alone someone who has husein as a middle name, they wont say anything right now, they (the republicans) are waiting for him to be nominated, then they will do him in, just like they waited for kerry and then called him a coward durring the election, and anyone who doe not realize that this will hapen is......stupid. Some in the left are so idiotic, they will elect an unelectable to prove they are not racist, only to hand the presidency to the republican, and I will go as far as saying that it looks like mccain, the supporter of bush and the war, the one who made a video for the north vietnamese...so on....well what to expect, after all they are our mest up little cousins who always get themselves in trouble....lol.. a lot of people think the same way u do...the difference is, they dont have the balls to say it, in fear of been called ...racist...
Anon 1:00,
America already showed it was ready for a cokehead by electing George W.
I see Biff is poised over this blog, ready to cut 'n paste the latest comment from huckleberry284 at FreeRepublic (or from Meserschmitt_14 at Stormfront) the minute you post something new.
I really don't know what to think about the candidates. I suspect that, at this point, America's decline is irreversible and anyone promising "Morning in America" yet again is deluded. It's the twilight of America and that's not just in relation to its foreign policy.
If there is going to be a renewal, the serial criminals who've been popping up every 10 years or so like zombies to screw up everything and to mentor a new generation of doughy crapsacks have to be dealt with decisively. I'm not sure any of the Democrats are brave enough to do that, certainly not an establishment candidate like Hillary Clinton.
I saw a clip of Obama where he is proclaiming "Only in America can my story happen."
What decade is this guy in? Is he suggesting that the election of a minority to a legislature or running for president is some sort of "audacity" in the year 2008, 44 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act?
Victoria BC elected a black man to city council in the 1860s. Ottawa elected a known lesbian in the 1950s. Ireland - Ireland! - recently elected its first black mayor. That's audacity.
Sure, campaigning for president in the USA is a different bag, but I recall Jesse Jackson running a nontrivial campaign 20 years ago, I even remember the Time cover ("Jesse?!"), so it's still not that trailblazing.
And I can't believe, in the year 2008, people are still saying about black people, with Ivy league degrees and editorships of the Harvard Friggin' Law Review, "he speaks so well! He's so well spoken!" Stop that! I'm conservative and it even bugs me!
The Republicans also want Hillary to win; she's communism incarnate.
Funny, Condi could win, Powell could win, so it has nothing to do with being black. That's just your prejudiced projection shining through.
And where is this doomed U.S. economy you leftards keeping harping on about? The numbers don't forecast it, so why do you?
Anon 1:49,
Powell COULD win. Doubt Condi could. But Powell could NOT win the Republican primary (which is why I think he hasn't tried). Replace Obama with Powell and that would be a whole different kettle of fish. He's a thorughly tested character a lot older, etc. etc.
Funny, Condi could win, Powell could win, so it has nothing to do with being black.
You're probably under the impression these people were elected. Or you don't seem to think it matters, which is a bold statement, considering how much campaigning and electoral politics are a big part of the problem.
Do you think a Condi campaign would be able to hide her lesbianism for very long or the fact that she's been lying for years about being able to speak Russian?
I put that title right up there with "Clinton Can't Win Because She's A Woman". Seems to me white independents flocked to Obama in Iowa, and are poised to do so again in New Hampshire. Also, seems to be the states where race might be an issue are redder than red, states Clinton won't play in either.
BigCityLib,
I truly hope that you're wrong. While I make no effort to hide my bias in favour of the candidate, I believe that there are signs to suggest that you may be mistaken. For example, Obama won in an overwhelmingly white, rural and evangelical state - ie, Iowa.
It does not take much foresight to guess that conservatives may make issue of his name (eg, Osama-Obama and Hussein). And this may indeed hurt him in a general election with ignorant/uninformed voters. However, his connection with Islam is extremely minimal.
On that point, your contention in the first paragraph (ie, that his parents are/were Muslim) is incorrect. Obama was raised by his mother in Hawaii, who was a white agnostic from Kentucky. His father left them when he was young and was agnostic too, despite his Muslim background.
However, his connection with Islam is extremely minimal.
The connection if more than adequate for a proper Swiftboating.
Nice of you to use his race as a sheild for criticism.
I'd expect nothing less.
Actually he can't win because he has, by a far margin, the most liberal voting record of any recent senatorial candidate.
Much to your dismay, the most powerful nation on earth will not elect a far out lefty.
Now, carry on with your race baiting.
Steve,
Being a woman WILL be a barrier to Hillary's run if she becomes the Dem. candidate.
D'you think Obama could win against McCain (their best guy) or Giuliani? I think disastrously not (despite what a few early head to head polls might say).
BigCityLib,
It seems that you have a feeling that Obama will loose due to his race, but you do not provide an explanation as to how, much less provide examples. Could you please provide such information to back up the claim? It would help foster the debate.
BTW, you did not address my comments about correcting the first paragraph in this post.
Ti-Guy,
It's always easy to make stuff up - eg, "Swiftboating". You cannot protect yourself from it. It happens on an enormous scale, and takes a variety of forms whether it be individuals making comments based solely on their biases and assumptions, or organized groups. For example, at my own blog, one commentator suggested that Obama grew up rich, knowing the right people, and implied that he constituted part of an elusive elite.
Just because people can make stuff up and attack a candidate based on falsities does not mean that they will necessarily be effective. In fact, it may even backfire.
Actually he can't win because he has, by a far margin, the most liberal voting record of any recent senatorial candidate.
..."liberal" is just righty code for non-white/non-Christian/gay/woman.
What makes you think CLinton can beat McCain? The head to heads show McCain fairing best against her, and as you said they are known quantities, far more indicative than any comparision with Obama.
You mentioned "safe". Sounds a lot like the rationale behind Kerry's candidacy. The Republcians will try to destroy any Democrat, the question the becomes, is it better to have a candidate that appeals to a sensibility beyond partisanship, with little baggage, or someone who is very divisive and has high negatives? To say Obama will be get smeared by the Rep machine is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. That means nothing, you just "insert name here".
I'm not an Obama guy, and I appreciate why Clinton could be the best choice, but there are so many ways to look at electability, that there is no clear advantage with either, on that score alone. In my mind, anyways.
Just because people can make stuff up and attack a candidate based on falsities does not mean that they will necessarily be effective. In fact, it may even backfire.
After seven years of seeing it work like gang-busters, I have serious doubts about that.
Until we start considering that kind of thing criminal, I doubt it will change.
Steve,
I agree with your commentary about the difficulty in assessing electability. There are a number of interdependent factors to consider. And one factor that seems to have gone unrecognized in this thread is Obama's appeals to and track record on working across partisan lines, "rising above what divides us". There's even a group called Republicans for Obama.
tarheel
I think Obama's trump here, as you mention, his message of bridging the gap, speaking past the partisanship. The trouble with Clinton, she is divisive, she is a lightning rod and you have to wonder how that translates when the battle is joined. Lots of factors, but to just argue Obama will get creamed, seems to forget the consequences of the other choice. You want to see the Republicans raise money and mobilize the base, just say the word Clinton.
BigCityLib,
I appreciate your concerns about a smear campaign, but this is part and parcel of political campaigns, for better or worse. The effectiveness of such smears depends on a variety of factors, including the environment in which the attacks are being made.
My problem is understanding why you think that Obama's race will hurt him in the election (should he win the Democractic nomination). Do you have some social science evidence to suggest "racism"? Or is it merely conjecture? Frankly, I'm inclined to believe George Will that (again, for the second time) Obama's victory in an overwhelming white, rural and evangelical state (ie, Iowa) suggests that race is far less of factor today.
Steve,
I see more of a potential downside on Obama. Stuff that might come out, whether based on fact or not.
Hilary has been pounded on so long, out doubt there's any more to find. McCain will start looking old on the campaign trail. However, Obama has really faced kids gloves in the Dem primary. The party kind of felt embarrassed bringing up his youthful drug flirtations. The Republicans won't feel embarrassed.
My rationale is: the Republicans are in awful shape,so this is not the time for the Dems to take a flier on an unknown quantity. If there was ever a time to choose a "white guy in a dark suit", this is it.
(By the way, Kerry was also the best Democratic candidate in 2004).
Steve,
You want to see the Republicans raise money and mobilize the base, just say the word Clinton.
Very true. In my experience, it's odd how the name Clinton evokes such a visceral reaction among a number of Republicans.
BCL,
If there was ever a time to choose a "white guy in a dark suit", this is it.
I think this is the wrong way to go. Instead, I think that supporting a candidate that has attached his/her candidacy to a movement for change, hope and reaching across partisan lines is a much stronger choice.
BCL & Ti-guy,
You may find "Obama's Red State Appeal" informative (Time magazine):
"...a national Gallup poll this month also found that nearly as many Republicans like Obama — 39% — than the 43% that dislike him, compared with the 78% of Republicans who held an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton."
Don't believe George Will, firstly! Jesus! His tune will change as soon as Obama gets the nomination.
And the point about Iowa is less that its largely white than that the Caucus method is really weird. All sorts of room for eccentric choices, for "sending a message" that others will bear the consequences of.
As for the broader race issue, Obama can win certain states but, sorry, the Republicans have been playing the race card for a long, long time, and it has always worked a little bit, sometimes alot (Dukakis and Willie Horton). Obama is still pretty much a blank slate. My conjecture is it will work on him big-time.
By the way, I've altered the post to reflect tar-heels comments. I'll be going out for the rest of the aft. however.
BCL,
Again, I point to the polls indicating Obama's red state appeal. And again, I still haven't seen any poll, survey, etc to lend credence to your claim. But I will acknowledge one if provided.
Alright, last comment. No, TH, I can provide no poll to contradict that. But, as I say, he's still pretty much a blank slate, a good looking, well spoken black guy, as someone put it. But the Republicans will offer reasons to hate him, mostly fantasy based, and in the South and MidWest, people will accept those reasons.
I'd bet on it.
BCL:
You're showing some irrational fear there of some magical Republican resurgence. At this point, even if the Democrats were to somehow lose the White House, current polling shows that the Congress will probably flip even more so in their favour in BOTH Houses.
Congressional Republicans are poison right now to the electorate, and a Democratic candidate somehow managing to lose the Presidential Vote isn't going to affect the Congressional votes.
Not even the liberal Democratic blogs fear that end result.
Tarheel: I don't have any real doubts that average people can transcend issues such as race and gender. I just don't think the political apparatus in the US can. At this point, they should just poll the CEO's (who also own the media) and the think tanks and ask them who they think should be president. Then they should spare everyone the time and money and simply appoint that person.
To back up my remarks about Obama's parents:
Larissa MacFarquhar, "The Conciliator", The New Yorker (7 May 2007).
And Wiki (for what it's worth)
The only one really cheering for Hillary to become President is Bill. That way he can emerge from under the banner of
Worst.
President.
Ever.
It'll destroy the U.S., but it'll make Bill happy!
The only one really cheering for Hillary to become President is Bill. That way he can emerge from under the banner of
Worst.
President.
Ever.
It'll destroy the U.S., but it'll make Bill happy!
Scott, you may be right but never underestimate the ability of the U.S. Democratic Party to embrace disaster.
Most of the people who wouldn't vote for a black man would never vote Democratic to begin with. And which Southern states have the Dems won recently anyways?
Im excited about the possibility of Obama winning because he is the best candidate. His race neither persuades nor dissuades me from supporting him.
KC wrote:
"Most of the people who wouldn't vote for a black man would never vote Democratic to begin with."
The Reagan Democrats would vote Democrat to begin with, would probably not vote for Obama. White working class (men esp.).
And Bill Clinton won quite a few Southern States.
BCL wrote:
"The Reagan Democrats would vote Democrat to begin with, would probably not vote for Obama. White working class (men esp.)."
That's probably right. Carter was a Southern Baptist but lost the Evangelical vote to Reagan who wasn't particularly religious. This was the start of the red state coalition which the GOP have so shrewdly constructed. The race should be a cakewalk for the Dems but Obama and Clinton are both so emminently vulnerable to attack. Working class folks can sense that there is something seriously wrong with the direction the U.S. is heading. Good paying union jobs are quickly disappearing while the corporate masters of both parties grow ever more grotesquely wealthy. Like Leonard Cohen wrote, "the captain lied and everybody knows." What difference would it really make if a Kerry- like suit becomes the Dem candidate and wins in Nov. Nothing will really change. I sense that when it comes right down to it white blue collar voters won't vote for a woman or a black man. Either McCain or Huckabee will beat either Obama or Cinton if that's the way it shakes out.
"..."liberal" is just righty code for non-white/non-Christian/gay/woman."
Ted Kennedy? John Kerry? John Edwards?
Bear in mind that Obama doesn't "read" black to a lot of Americans, black and white. This is because he basically isn't (half-Kenyan, half-white American; raised by his white mother nowhere near mainstream black American culture; appearance more reminiscent of a deeply tanned Alfred E. Neuman than anything else; speaks with a "pointy-headed intellectual" accent and diction that he obviously spends a lot of time trying to tone down). Recall that this gave him some problems getting black support earlier in the race; i.e. he didn't read black to them either.
I use the phrase "read" black because I think this is a response that takes place mostly on a subconscious level. Overt racists will certainly never vote for him, but I do believe they're a small enough minority (and mainly concentrated in southern states) that Obama can win. If played correctly by the Repugs, though, there's a possiblity that the Hussein/Muslim thing and the drug use skeleton could do him some serious damage. OTOH I think the media may be looking to protect itself against charges of enabling "swiftboating" this time, so any Democratic nominee may be somewhat inoculated against that.
OTOH I think the media may be looking to protect itself against charges of enabling "swiftboating" this time, so any Democratic nominee may be somewhat inoculated against that.
I'll believe that when I see it.
Hiliary a communist? Obviously that Anon doesn't know what communism is. What a lame brain.
Ah, the US did really really well under Clinton's tenure as president.
How about this - Guiliani is a facsists - as are most republicans.
It is interesting to see that white people have little faith in their own group's progress.
Do you really think whites, as a group, are too racist to support a candidate just because he doesn't have white skin? In 2008? If so, what have whites been doing in the last 50 years? Why is it taking them so long to put that level of racism behind them?
What does that say about white people generally who have "voting power" in other capacities? For instance, would a white person who wouldn't vote for a qualified black man refuse to hire a qualified black man? Scary. What does that say for equal opportunity?
If Obama loses, I hope it is because America decided that another candidate would be a better leader, not because the other candidate has white skin. =( I don't want my children to grow up in that type of world. I hope, really really hope, that white people have changed.
that last comment is quite silly and idealistic. I think i feel a tear coming down my cheak.. :(
Anyhow, back to the depth of this topic. John McCain will win this election regardless of who the Democrats ultimately make up their minds to nominate. The Democrats have truely shot themselves in the foot this election. Their two main choices are:
H.Clinton-a communistic woman who will be absolutely slayed by the Republicans with her backround of socialist support and crime. (might i add is also hated by many in Democratic party as well).
B.Obama- A socialist who has been in Congress for barely enough time to find the restroom. He will be absolutely speechless when he finds what the Republicans will be able to find on him. Questionable backround, member of a black-seperatist church,(look it up people if you dont beive me), and being the most liberal Senator in 2006. McCain will make him look like a toddler.
Post a Comment