Post #162
Subject: Barack Obama, Where has the Magic Gone?
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
How Obama Won and May Win
By Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/
June 10, 2008
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Thus did Joe Biden famously describe his rival for the nomination, Barack Obama, to the The New York Observer, a year ago.
Biden, however, thought Obama might not be able to win the fall election, as he is “a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate. I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”
Biden was forced to apologize, but was dead on in discerning Barack’s strengths as a candidate in the primaries, which might prove weaknesses in the fall.
[Yep, Joe Biden was correct – and so was Hillary ‘he can’t win’ Clinton.]
A new face in the game, Barack opened with three aces. He opposed the Iraq war, the defining issue in a party that had come to detest the war. He was an African-American. Thus, as the hopes of millions rose that he could be the first black president, there were surges of black voters whom he begin to sweep 90-10.
Lastly, Barack is a natural, a Mickey Mantle, a superb political athlete like JFK, who has looks, charm, youth and a speaking style that can move crowds to cheers or laughter.
Barack was thus able to unite the McGovern wing – young, idealistic, liberal, anti-war -- with the Jesse Jackson quadrant of the party, black folks, and defeat Hillary’s coalition of working-class Catholics, women, seniors and Hispanics.
As of today, by the traditional metrics of national politics, Democrats should roll up a victory this fall like FDR’s first in 1932.
[My Grandma – 87 years old and feisty as Hell – could beat the crap out of John W. McCain. But we are gonna get him! [rolleyes] My hope is that we elect enough Democrats with ‘testicular fortitude’ to restore Congress’ proper role among the three branches of government – and reject any Scalias who are nominated.]
Bush’s disapproval is near 70 percent, and 80 percent of the country believes the nation is on the wrong course. Unemployment is rising. Surging gas and food prices compete for the top story not only on business pages but front pages, with home foreclosures and the housing slump. Family incomes of Middle Americans have ceased to rise, as millions of their best jobs have been outsourced overseas.
Yet, national polls show McCain-Obama a close race, and the electoral map points to critical problems for Barack.
He seeks, for example, to target Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. But in all three the Hispanic vote may be decisive. And Barack was beaten by Hillary two to one among Hispanics, and between these two largest of America’s minorities, rivalry and tension are real and rising.
Barack must hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and pick up Ohio or Virginia. Yet, his weakness among Southern and working-class whites and women is remarkable. By two to one they rejected him.
After his string of primary and caucus victories in February, Barack proceeded to lose Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, then West Virginia by 41, Kentucky by 35, Puerto Rico two to one and South Dakota by 10. That last one Barack was supposed to win.
The longer the campaign went on, the more reluctant Democrats seemed to be to embrace his nomination.
What is Barack’s problem?
Middle America knows little about him, and much of what they know they do not like. When West Virginians were asked what they knew about Barack, a plurality said the Rev. Wright was his pastor. In Pennsylvania, a goodly slice of Democrats knew Barack had said they were ‘bitter’ about being left behind and were clinging to their bigotries, Bibles and guns.
By June, resistance to Barack’s nomination in the party that he now leads was extraordinary, stemming from a belief that he is too naive to be commander in chief in wartime and too far left, and does not like or understand Middle America or its values.
“He is not one of us.”
And if Barack cannot erase this hardening perception in the American mind, he will not be president.
Democrats may talk of making the economy the issue this fall, but Republicans are going to make Barack the issue. Story line: We cannot entrust our beloved America, in a time of war, to this radical and exotic figure who has so many crazy and extremist associates.
Barack’s problem is thus Reagan’s problem.
As the country wished to be rid of Jimmy Carter in 1980, so the nation today wishes to be rid of Bush and his Republicans. But America is apprehensive over a roll of the dice, in Bill Clinton’s metaphor.
How did Reagan ease the anxiety? In the debate with Carter, he came off as conservative, yes, but also traditional, mainstream, witty and the more likable man. The real Reagan came through.
With his persona, Barack may be able to do the same – in the debates. The problem is that he had two dozen debates with Hillary and, by the end of the primary season, five months after it began, he was still losing ground.
[And to wait for the debates will be too late – negative perceptions will have hardened by then in this era of 24/7 news. Obama needs to show he is one of us.. BEFORE the convention. I heard that Obama’s mother was on welfare – he knows then what it is to struggle. Play that up, for Goodness sake.]
Friday, June 27, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Post #161
Subject: What’s in a name?
Bay Buchanan, in my Post #160, said, “…Obama has a problem with patriotism. Then add that middle name. Point-Set-Match.” What does she mean?
Hussein – a Semitic name used by some of our staunchest Arab allies, the Husseins of Jordan. How is that a liability? Unless, of course, ya look down your nose and assume most Americans are stupid. :p
On the other side:
Sydney – a girl’s name for a girl, a ‘limp-wrist’ name for a boy. I’m sure the Republican can already kiss the homosexual vote ‘bye,’ but, the more his middle name gets played, he can kiss homophobes…’bye!’ :p
Subject: What’s in a name?
Bay Buchanan, in my Post #160, said, “…Obama has a problem with patriotism. Then add that middle name. Point-Set-Match.” What does she mean?
Hussein – a Semitic name used by some of our staunchest Arab allies, the Husseins of Jordan. How is that a liability? Unless, of course, ya look down your nose and assume most Americans are stupid. :p
On the other side:
Sydney – a girl’s name for a girl, a ‘limp-wrist’ name for a boy. I’m sure the Republican can already kiss the homosexual vote ‘bye,’ but, the more his middle name gets played, he can kiss homophobes…’bye!’ :p
Friday, June 13, 2008
Post #160
Subject: I like to read obscure articles on the 'net...
… and pretend that I have friends who share my interests! :p
I’m going to the beach next week. But I’ll be back. ‘Til then:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26814
“For or Against? “by Bay Buchanan
It’s finally over: the mother of all primaries has done her job reducing the field to two. But in reality there is only one candidate. Barack Obama. In November he will win or he will lose.
John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps. And while his strong suite is experience, especially on military matters, it was gained almost entirely in Washington, a city that 80% of Americans now believe has miserably misled and mismanaged the nation.
Since McCain has become the presumptive nominee, I have spoken at more than two dozen Republican gatherings. The sentiment everywhere can best be summarized in the words of one of the activists, “No matter who wins in November, we lose.”
Some pundits are suggesting that because Obama is having difficulty attracting Hillary’s women and Reagan Democrats that John McCain could pick them up. Not on the issues he can’t. Hillary’s women are big government feminists who are not going to be particularly impressed with McCain’s commitment to conservatives to appoint Scalia-like judges. (It was a commitment, wasn’t it?)
As for the Reagan Democrats they tend to be socially conservative, economically nationalist, working class white voters. McCain, on the other hand, continues to defend the very trade policies that have sent their jobs overseas. And he further alienated these Americans with his open border immigration policies that depressed their wages with cheap labor and ignored their plight while catering to the 20 million living here illegally.
So if he isn’t going to attract these voters with the issues and we know it won’t be with his charm, how does he do it? He doesn’t. Obama does.
As a candidate Obama is bigger than life. Die-hard liberals are euphoric over his nomination. He is seen as the real thing -- a man who believes what he says and says what he believes. His candidacy has mobilized millions of new voters, held massive rallies, and raised money faster than Federal Reserve can print it. Obama is a gifted candidate who has that intangible quality most candidates only dream about -- he moves voters -- which gives his campaign enormous energy and excitement. And he did this all the while fighting and eventually slaying the dragon lady herself!
But can he unite the Democrats? Hillary’s women are furious; they shared their candidate’s sense of entitlement and believe she was cheated out of the nomination. Also within the party there is so much tension between the blacks and the Hispanics that there is a rising concern the Hispanics may not vote for Obama because of the color of his skin. (Isn’t this called racism? Or is it only racism if Republicans are involved?) Obama may pay the price for a party built on dividing America one special interest group at a time.
But even before the uniting can begin Obama needs to regain his voice, reenergize his troops, and recapture the magic. His campaign sputtered across the finish line after weeks of appearing struck in first gear. There was no sign of the magic that was once his trademark.
His greatest challenge, however, is dealing with his inexperience. It makes him vulnerable on two fronts. First inexperience leads to mistakes -- as in Obama’s remark before the Pennsylvania primary about bitter voters clinging to God and guns.
Equally important, inexperienced candidates are generally not defined in the minds of the public. This presents a valuable opportunity for opponents to do the defining. (Remember the ACLU card-carrying liberal governor who released violent criminals onto the streets?) Americans like new and fresh but if they develop serious reservations they will fall back to the default candidate rather than role the dice.
Thanks to Hillary and the church that keeps on giving, Chicago’s Trinity United, reservations now abound.
The most serious of these is the issue of Obama’s patriotism. Middle America will not vote -- nor should they -- for anyone who is not deeply and unequivocally proud to be an American. And the evidence needed to make this case against Obama keeps getting stronger -- whether it is the video of his minister trashing this country; or the faces in the congregation clapping their approval; or the photo of Obama’s hand at his side during the national anthem; or his weak and foolish explanation for not wearing the flag pin. Presented together it is not an unfair jump to conclude Obama has a problem with patriotism. Then add that middle name. Point-Set-Match.
By November there will be two Obamas. The articulate, attractive, dynamic candidate who inspired the nation with his message of hope and would be the first African American President and the anti-war, left-wing, inexperienced black candidate with a patriotism problem.
It’s all up to Obama now -- and a few 527s.
Subject: I like to read obscure articles on the 'net...
… and pretend that I have friends who share my interests! :p
I’m going to the beach next week. But I’ll be back. ‘Til then:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26814
“For or Against? “by Bay Buchanan
It’s finally over: the mother of all primaries has done her job reducing the field to two. But in reality there is only one candidate. Barack Obama. In November he will win or he will lose.
John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps. And while his strong suite is experience, especially on military matters, it was gained almost entirely in Washington, a city that 80% of Americans now believe has miserably misled and mismanaged the nation.
Since McCain has become the presumptive nominee, I have spoken at more than two dozen Republican gatherings. The sentiment everywhere can best be summarized in the words of one of the activists, “No matter who wins in November, we lose.”
Some pundits are suggesting that because Obama is having difficulty attracting Hillary’s women and Reagan Democrats that John McCain could pick them up. Not on the issues he can’t. Hillary’s women are big government feminists who are not going to be particularly impressed with McCain’s commitment to conservatives to appoint Scalia-like judges. (It was a commitment, wasn’t it?)
As for the Reagan Democrats they tend to be socially conservative, economically nationalist, working class white voters. McCain, on the other hand, continues to defend the very trade policies that have sent their jobs overseas. And he further alienated these Americans with his open border immigration policies that depressed their wages with cheap labor and ignored their plight while catering to the 20 million living here illegally.
So if he isn’t going to attract these voters with the issues and we know it won’t be with his charm, how does he do it? He doesn’t. Obama does.
As a candidate Obama is bigger than life. Die-hard liberals are euphoric over his nomination. He is seen as the real thing -- a man who believes what he says and says what he believes. His candidacy has mobilized millions of new voters, held massive rallies, and raised money faster than Federal Reserve can print it. Obama is a gifted candidate who has that intangible quality most candidates only dream about -- he moves voters -- which gives his campaign enormous energy and excitement. And he did this all the while fighting and eventually slaying the dragon lady herself!
But can he unite the Democrats? Hillary’s women are furious; they shared their candidate’s sense of entitlement and believe she was cheated out of the nomination. Also within the party there is so much tension between the blacks and the Hispanics that there is a rising concern the Hispanics may not vote for Obama because of the color of his skin. (Isn’t this called racism? Or is it only racism if Republicans are involved?) Obama may pay the price for a party built on dividing America one special interest group at a time.
But even before the uniting can begin Obama needs to regain his voice, reenergize his troops, and recapture the magic. His campaign sputtered across the finish line after weeks of appearing struck in first gear. There was no sign of the magic that was once his trademark.
His greatest challenge, however, is dealing with his inexperience. It makes him vulnerable on two fronts. First inexperience leads to mistakes -- as in Obama’s remark before the Pennsylvania primary about bitter voters clinging to God and guns.
Equally important, inexperienced candidates are generally not defined in the minds of the public. This presents a valuable opportunity for opponents to do the defining. (Remember the ACLU card-carrying liberal governor who released violent criminals onto the streets?) Americans like new and fresh but if they develop serious reservations they will fall back to the default candidate rather than role the dice.
Thanks to Hillary and the church that keeps on giving, Chicago’s Trinity United, reservations now abound.
The most serious of these is the issue of Obama’s patriotism. Middle America will not vote -- nor should they -- for anyone who is not deeply and unequivocally proud to be an American. And the evidence needed to make this case against Obama keeps getting stronger -- whether it is the video of his minister trashing this country; or the faces in the congregation clapping their approval; or the photo of Obama’s hand at his side during the national anthem; or his weak and foolish explanation for not wearing the flag pin. Presented together it is not an unfair jump to conclude Obama has a problem with patriotism. Then add that middle name. Point-Set-Match.
By November there will be two Obamas. The articulate, attractive, dynamic candidate who inspired the nation with his message of hope and would be the first African American President and the anti-war, left-wing, inexperienced black candidate with a patriotism problem.
It’s all up to Obama now -- and a few 527s.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Post #159
Subject: Democratic Party, 2008, R.I.P.
“The will of the people as expressed thro the voting booth does not matter.” – that should be repeated by every far-left news ‘personality’ and every superdelegate who has declared for Barack Obama, including Chris Matthews’ former boss, President Jimmy Carter.
Primary votes:
Hillary Clinton - 17, 833, 005
Barack Obama – 17, 571, 347
“The will of the people as expressed thro the voting booth does not matter.” Oh, yes. Despite the media’s oppressing the vote by declaring the race was over months ago, Hillary still won.
Complain that Obama’s name was not on the Michigan ballot. Well, ya can’t blame Clinton – that was Obama’s fault. Democrats should be about counting votes – not making up votes. Complain that Puerto Rico was allowed to vote. Well, ya can’t blame Clinton either – that was the DNC’s fault.
“The will of the people as expressed thro the voting booth does not matter.”
So there ya have the new motto for the Democratic Party of 2008. Ya’d think. so soon after 2000, Democrats would know better. * sigh *
And, of course, the sub-title is “Racism is wrong… when practiced by whites – when practiced by blacks, racism needs to be understood.” I don’t know if Obama is a racist – tho it’s not hard to imagine that some venom has not rubbed off during the 20 years of nodding ‘Amen’ to Reverend Wright. But I do know he is an apologist for racism – in my book, an apologist is even worse. I shudder to think the message his daughters are getting.
The irony is that I was fully prepared to vote for a black man – as I have done before – even after the news of Wright broke. It wasn’t until Obama called for “understanding”in ‘the greatest political speech of the past 40 years’ that I realized what I was dealing with. Race was not an issue in the ’08 election until Obama made it so.
As Obama said, poor white trash “get bitter, they cling to… antipathy to people who aren't like them.” As a loyal and faithful Democratic voter for my whole life, I’ve always voted against racism. I am a member of the Democratic base, poor white ‘bitter’ trash. Now, I’m being asked by the Democratic Party to support an apologist for racism who is half-black – as tho that matters. I wonder if Jimmy Carter can explain that to me.
As I believe John F. Kennedy said, ‘sometimes, party loyalty asks too much.’
Barak Obama has been judged not by the color of his skin but the content of his character. I will still vote Democratic down the line, but I cannot support an aloof apologist for racism at the top of the ticket.
Subject: Democratic Party, 2008, R.I.P.
“The will of the people as expressed thro the voting booth does not matter.” – that should be repeated by every far-left news ‘personality’ and every superdelegate who has declared for Barack Obama, including Chris Matthews’ former boss, President Jimmy Carter.
Primary votes:
Hillary Clinton - 17, 833, 005
Barack Obama – 17, 571, 347
“The will of the people as expressed thro the voting booth does not matter.” Oh, yes. Despite the media’s oppressing the vote by declaring the race was over months ago, Hillary still won.
Complain that Obama’s name was not on the Michigan ballot. Well, ya can’t blame Clinton – that was Obama’s fault. Democrats should be about counting votes – not making up votes. Complain that Puerto Rico was allowed to vote. Well, ya can’t blame Clinton either – that was the DNC’s fault.
“The will of the people as expressed thro the voting booth does not matter.”
So there ya have the new motto for the Democratic Party of 2008. Ya’d think. so soon after 2000, Democrats would know better. * sigh *
And, of course, the sub-title is “Racism is wrong… when practiced by whites – when practiced by blacks, racism needs to be understood.” I don’t know if Obama is a racist – tho it’s not hard to imagine that some venom has not rubbed off during the 20 years of nodding ‘Amen’ to Reverend Wright. But I do know he is an apologist for racism – in my book, an apologist is even worse. I shudder to think the message his daughters are getting.
The irony is that I was fully prepared to vote for a black man – as I have done before – even after the news of Wright broke. It wasn’t until Obama called for “understanding”in ‘the greatest political speech of the past 40 years’ that I realized what I was dealing with. Race was not an issue in the ’08 election until Obama made it so.
As Obama said, poor white trash “get bitter, they cling to… antipathy to people who aren't like them.” As a loyal and faithful Democratic voter for my whole life, I’ve always voted against racism. I am a member of the Democratic base, poor white ‘bitter’ trash. Now, I’m being asked by the Democratic Party to support an apologist for racism who is half-black – as tho that matters. I wonder if Jimmy Carter can explain that to me.
As I believe John F. Kennedy said, ‘sometimes, party loyalty asks too much.’
Barak Obama has been judged not by the color of his skin but the content of his character. I will still vote Democratic down the line, but I cannot support an aloof apologist for racism at the top of the ticket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)