The Obamamania that has been sweeping the globe in recent weeks is almost as irritating to me as my generation's obsession with the MTV hit show Tila Tequila. The blog-o-sphere is making the same mistake as big media by its refusal to subject Barack Obama to a serious evaluation process. This willful refusal to vet Senator Obama will leave us in serious peril during a general election if he becomes the Democratic nominee. There are several problems I do not think that Obama should be the nominee.
Never faced a serious opponent. When he ran for state Senate and later U.S. Senate he was largely unopposed. The Boston Globe Onlinegoes into more detail,
NEVER FACED A SERIOUS OPPONENT: Running in heavily Democratic Chicago, Obama never faced a significant Republican foe in his state Senate races. In his U.S. Senate race, the original Republican nominee dropped out, and GOP leaders brought in commentator Alan Keyes from Maryland. Keyes had little money and managed to alienate voters from both parties. Years earlier, Obama got his first opponents knocked off the ballot. He challenged the petition signatures that three rivals filed, and election officials concluded he was the only one with the proper paperwork, leaving him unopposed in the 1996 Democratic primary.
Inconsistent Voting Record. Obama also missed several controversial votes in both the U.S. Senate and the Illinois State Senate. This hardly shows leadership and has the ability to isolate Democrats who care about National security (due to his missing the Kyl-Lieberman vote) and staunchly pro-choice democrats (due to missing almost every single controversial abortion vote in Illinois). The Kyl-Lieberman vote is important, not because he necessarily had to vote for it, but because it will now be hard for him to make any argument for or against it because he chose not to vote. Also, as CBSas already noted, "Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics." The media's refusal to question Obama about any of these issues is not doing a service to America. Senator Clinton has been questioned about even the most sensitive and personal topics and shown that she has the ability to stay cool under fire.
Inability to ride momentum. Senator Obama received a huge boost of money, confidence, and support following his victory in the Iowa Caucus. The media was ready to crown him the Democratic nominee, and major publications declared Hillary Clinton's campaign dead. Obama should have been able to parlay this into a strong victory in New Hampshire. Instead he grew overconfident. Obama chose to do several large rallies instead of getting out and connecting with voters. He also continued to speak vaguely about making history while neglecting to discuss how he would actually make history. While Clinton was talking about very specific things that she would do for the voters of New Hampshire Obama was regaling people with vague platitudes of change. The inability to use momentum to gain votes is disturbing.
Weak Environmental Program His plan does little to confront real environmental challenges. Erica Barnett, who writes for the Seattle Stranger, explains her frustration with Obama's energy plan,
...his energy plan is the least progressive and most status quo of the three. The plan, released last October, includes every pale-green, fake-environmentalist scheme you can imagine: Expanded nuclear, doubling or tripling (!!!) of corn production for ethanol, a carbon sequestration scheme that relies on technologies that don't yet exist, and so-called "clean coal," which isn't really clean at all.
Barnettalso notes that Obama refused to support mining reforms that would have cracked down on harmful mining practices. Environmentalism is just one place where young voters need to think carefully before casting their vote for Obama. It is my generation that is going to have to deal with the environmental problems of tomorrow. We cannot afford to support a candidate with a weak environmental record because they promise a change from the status quo. Environmentalism is also another area where the blogging community and the media have willfully refused to take a hard look at Obama.
Ignorance of partisanship. The Republicans are not going to stop caring about the issues that get them elected. Obama is not going to be able to rise above partisanship simply through a politics of hope. Republicans are going to continue to play rough. I am going to quote Barnettagain to show you what I mean
In 2005, he even wrote that Republicans were not, contrary to what Democrats believed, a "sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners" party, calling those descriptions mere "labels" and "jargon."
Many Republicans are sharply partisan and radically conservative. It is important to remember that a multi-million dollar character assassination program was thrown at the Clinton's. A deeply partisan and radically conservative character assassination program. The Clinton's survived through fighting back. There is nothing about senator Obama that leads me to believe he will be able to fight against the right wing effectively.
Anti-establishment rhetoric is out of control. The idea that we should not support Clinton because she is the establishment candidate is unfounded. A smart writer on Buzzflashwas on point when she compared the anti-Hillary rhetoric to the rhetoric that was used to defeat Al Gore in 2000
When Al Gore ran in 2000, he was branded as "establishment." "Liberal" voters alleged that there is no significant difference between Al Gore and George Bush, that in effect, he was part of the "Washington Machine," reliant upon special interests for his political existence, corrupted by a lifetime of deal-making and scale-jumping, etc. I doubt that any of those folks would stand up and admit to having believed that now. Eight years later, we are left only to imagine and mourn what would have been had that establishment, special interest-viced, fence straddler assumed his rightful place as the President of the United States. And let's not forget the attacks on his facial gestures, his tone, his annoyance at utter idiocy as he put up with Bush during the debates. "He's not charming," "he's not warm," and my absolute favorite, "he's too intellectual" -- sound familiar??
In every other election, except this one, Obama has taken money from lobbyists. If Obama wins the nomination the establishment will back him and he will be just as tied to special interests as Senator Clinton. Unfortunately, in the absence of public financing huge amounts of money are required to win elections. Clinton understands this and should not be punished for it. It is not only about who you take money from it is about what you will fight for and what you have done to achieve change. This anti-establishment rhetoric is out of touch with reality.
Universal Health care Any health care plan proposed by the President will be changed in Congress. That said, Obama does not start from the premise that coverage should be universal. That is not to say his plan is without any merit, but it is NOT universal. It offers health care to people who cannot purchase it through their employer. I find it hard to believe cost can be effectively controlled without required health care. Part of what drives cost up now is uninsured emergency room visits. A refusal to mandate health care cannot reduce the number of these visits substantially. When Clinton announced her plan people were surprised at how comprehensive (albeit liberal) it was. Of course instead of critically challenging Obama's health appeasement plan the media and bloggers shifted to calling Clinton part of the establishment.
In 2004 Edwards did not support universal coverage. Obama does not support universal coverage today. Clinton has supported universal coverage for almost two decades. She has advocated universal coverage even when it was not popular and even against overwhelming odds. Ask yourself, who will really be the best candidate to institute universal coverage?
The Debates Clinton, with the exception of one debate in October, has decisively one every debate. She is clearly superior in terms of debating. The impact of this is somewhat lessened because the Democrats are similar on a lot of issues and because there are a lot of candidates debating at once. The impact of poor debating skills will be magnified a hundred fold in a general election. Obama stutters, appears dull, and lets a number of attacks go unanswered. In a general election we do not want a candidate who cannot win debates.
The reason for writing all of these things is not to attack Senator Obama, and he would certainly be better than any of the Republican candidates. The purpose of this article is start a process of vetting that so far the media has largely refused to engage in. How much longer will we continue to give Senator Obama a free pass? In the interest of our country and our party I hope not much longer.