It's the best of times; it's the worst of times. Obama is a great candidate with appeal to voters who ordinarily don't vote, and cross-over appeal that we haven't seen since--well, maybe never.
But the nasty tactics of the Clintons' campaign have possibly revealed or presaged what an Obama campaign may face in the general election. And of course these things need to be considered in the primaries. It comes down to matters of race and name--or could.
So can he be painted black, or is he somehow "post-American"? I wrote about this before in connection with Shelby Steele's observations. "Opposition research" shows what else may be out there.
In many ways, Barack is the perfect candidate. He transcends the race issue. He's not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. He is bi-racial in the way that Colin Powell and Tiger Woods are, and somehow that seems to make him as a person more palatable to white voters. Not only that, he is so damn likable and can make you feel good about your vote. And here in Texas, it seems that the Democratic candidates are worried that Clinton at the top of the ticket drags them down, while Obama lifts them up. What does that tell you? We came close to electing a black candidate to the U.S. Senate here in 2002, in a really difficult time for the Dems.
Steele thinks Obama cannot win for reasons that have been discussed before. That business of "bargainer" and "challenger". Personally, I think Barack transcends that. More worrisome is the kind of trivial trash that has worked before in negative campaigns. Take a look at this article from "The American Conservative" where the author suggests that the "Hussein" and "Obama" names remind voters of those identified as our two worst enemies, and goes on to focus on Barack's church in Chicago as having an ethnocentric agenda. And finally, the suggestion that Chicago politics are dirty and that Barack comes out of that environment.
http://www.amconmag.com/...
Yes, this is from Pat Buchanan's magazine, but that magazine has been consistently anti-war and you cannot discount Pat's political expertise.
Here are some thoughts. Keep in mind that as a "trial lawyer" myself, I consider it prudent to address what might be perceived as weaknesses before your opponent starts doing so:
- I think the Obama campaign should get this "Hussein" business out in the open as soon as possible. It's a name as common as "Smith" in the culture of his father, or whatever. The "issue" should become a "non-issue" and the earlier that happens, the better. Same with the church. And if Romney is the GOP candidate, that may well backfire.
- Some more trivial issues include this business of the American flag lapel pin. We have to remember that Bush I won in part because he went around shamelessly reciting the pledge of allegiance. And it's only a matter of time before flag burning comes up. Barack is a constitutional law expert. He knows that in the middle of WWII, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that schoolchildren cannot be forced to recite the pledge.
- I would really like to see Obama pick up the pace with regard to Pakistan. "Obama" ought to remind us, if anything, that we still have not tracked down the nerve center of Al Qaeda. Which is apparently in Pakistan
- I'd still like to see someone besides Joe Biden complain about the recent "sale" of fighter jets to Pakistan, financed by U.S taxpayers. Barack has been bolder than anyone else about Pakistan.
- The long term goals in Iraq are still not being talked about. Is it about establishing a U.S. ally? How long will that take? How likely is it to work? How much will it cost to rebuild a country that may not end up as our friend?
- On HRC's divisiveness: she unites Republicans, but would she be another President who just continues the current stalemate and who, like Bush, would have to appear only before pre-screened audiences?