Is Barack Obama the messiah? Or is he the Emperor with no clothes?
Last weekend, while Obama was sweeping political contests in three states, the top story at Fox News-- and in most of the media, was quite different. Apparently, Dutch teen Joran van der Sloot had been caught on hidden cameras apparently confessing to being involved in the disappearance of US teenager Natalee Holloway, an attractive young woman whose tragic disappearance caused quite a stir a couple of years ago.
Meanhile, Britney Spears's problems continued unabated. She was released from the hospital on February 6, but the drone continues unabated. Apparently, her father tried to fire her business manager. Did she get married in Mexico? Did she break a court plea? The dim has gotten so loud that Broadway play Monty Python's Spamalot, directed by Mike Nichols, even had a Spears joke removed from it.
These stories, to me, are profound. Far more profound than Obama's "wins" in Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska.
The chattering political classes like to think of themselves as superior. No one makes us think that we are superior more than Barack Obama. We are Obama people. We care about the big ideas. Hope. Change. Rah-rah-rah.
But what the past several months has revealed is that nothing changes. We really want are the same things; I mean, for us in the "superior" political chattering classes, Hillary Clinton is our Britney Spears.
And in the words of Tupac Shakur, a man who knew something about change, "that's just the way it is...Some things never change.".
We want the meat. Not the beef (sorry Walter Mondale), the real meat. The real juicy stuff. Juicy details. The DRAMA. The Schadenfreude. DRAAMMAAGGHH. RAAARRGHH. Like daytime soaps, but real. Anything else is boring. Hey Mr. Barack "civic goodness" Obama, why are you so boring and high-strung? Get a life.
It is for those reasons that I do not believe fear that Obama's message will not succeed in a General Election. Because America, (and this blog, right at the heart of "Obama country" - with its obssession for destroying the Clintons and winning the latest spin cycle - is a shining example of that "unlikely story"), is more interested in the juice and the meat and the heat of the battle than in big, boring ideas like "hope" and "unity" you kind of nod and pat on the head when they come from a 5-year old. I say this as a patriotic, proud American. I think our fascination with the trivial dramas and details and ups and downs of other people's lives and our ego trips and how we can destroy those on the "other side" are part of our competitive nature that makes us so goddamn tough.
This diary is about the politics of fear. I'm going to try and put the fear in you Obama supporters- the fear that your candidate can't win.
Because this primary season has left me feeling strangely twisted and hostile toward Barack, but it's also given me some new insights, and I need to have a good shout out. Maybe it'll help prepare you for the General Election. As good little Obama foot soldiers, this diary is perfect practice.
It's your job mission to respond with the Politics of Hope. Bring out Mr. Hope and show why he defeats Mr. Fear, as I have outlined below. Why the hell not? Isn't that what Kennedy asked?
Without further ado, 5 Problems for Barack Obama's electability in the General Election:
1. American voters don't know how liberal he is.
Obama was ranked as the #1 most liberal Senator by the National Journal. In 2004, the GOP accused John Kerry as being the most liberal Senator in the Senate and when they did, it was effective, even though it was untrue and based on statistical sleight of hand. But this time they have a real, reputable publication that is in many ways a standard bearer on Senate vote records to back them up.
Bloggers will come to the rescue... or will they? mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com offers a promising title that betrays the blogger's sympathies, but the actual text seems more interested in the debate between Obama and Hillary that defending against what this charge will really mean in a General Election. But even there I mean, let's face it, "16th most liberal Senator" doesn't quite pack the same punch as "most liberal Senator".
[March 2008... John McCain's top strategist meets with Karl Rove]
Rove: "The NJ ranked Barack Obama as the most liberal Senator in America. By the time this campaign is over, every voting adult in the country will know that fact. It will be the first thing they think of when they think of Barack Obama. It will be written on his forehead."
[Fast forward to September 2008, the following massive GOP ad buy debuts,
to run all the way through election day:]
[Cut to clip of Obama talking about reaching past 'red' and 'blue' America]
VO (negative tones):
"Barack Obama says he will bring Republicans and Democrats together but the facts
show that he was ranked by the National Journal as the most liberal Senator in the
Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy."
VO (good tones):
"John McCain has defied his party on key issues. John McCain will bring
Republicans and Democrats together, not Barack Obama."
This line will be repeated over, and over, and over again. Imagine that repeated 500 times by Republican surrogates, ads, outlets, and speakers. For months. Again. And again. And again. And again.
What will Obama's precious moderate independents think of that? How will Obama respond?
2. He hasn't been tested.
Forget the 'Clinton attack machine'. LOL. ROFL. ROFLMAO. Only a man whose ability for aristocratic finesse was failing him (if he had any) could think of something so crude as 'Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice'. Could you imagine William F. Buckley saying that? Really? Except Buckley is still alive and he won't be supporting Mr. Obama.
Only a woman afraid of seeing her own hopes destroyed and with a self-defeating instinct for saying what she thinks could say they don't want to raise "false hopes." (see, I don't idolize my candidate to the exclusion of criticism)
The real Republican attacks will be far more subtle. The GOP, is, in the end, the real establishment. And the real establishment plays its hand with the finesse and skill of the representatives and descendants of the non-burping class.
They will beat him down. Subtly. Measure by measure.
"I have hopes for America, great hopes. I believe in the future of the American worker to thrive under a government of less taxes... blah blah blah... "
"We don't want just any change, we want the right change."
"My hope is for an America with less taxes, less pork, and is not afraid to stand up to foreign enemies..."
"Barack Obama is a great speaker. He is just like a church preacher. He knows just what to say to get you to do what he wants you to do."
Yes, racism will destroy you in a Democratic primary. But it will not necessarily destroy you in a general election.
"Call me, Harold" didn't destroy Bob Corker.
And they will send out racist emails about "Barack Hussein Obama" and Muslims. And if you respond to it reaming the sender out for their racism, they will simply remove you from the mailing list the next time.
Obama has never defeated a Republican in a really contested election. At least the 2000 NY Sen election was contested. There was a chance that Hillary could have lost. There was no chance of Alan Keyes winning against Barack Obama.
3. He can top Hillary, but he can't top himself.
A lot of Obama's support is based on the fact that he's a "fresh face", and he's not getting any newer or fresher. His rhetorical abilities peaked in South Carolina. His stump sounded new in 2004, it even sounded new this year.
But eventually he's just going to be repeating the same things over and over again. And it's going to start getting old. It's going to start getting repetitive.
What is he going to do then? Try "new material"? That just makes him seem like an entertainer who constantly has to "keep the crowd going" [until November- the unspoken assumption].
Substance is forever. But rhetoric dies with the lights.
4. The excitement he generates will generate a backlash based on jealousy of 'the popular guy who has had nothing but success' and his fervent supporters will be blind to it just like all members of 'movements' are blinded by their own excitement.
Never underestimate the power of envy in human nature. When Mitt Romney looked like he might wrap up the Republican nomination, one of my friends remarked to me, "Romney's biggest weakness is that he's perceived as too perfect; he has no flaws." Indeed, George W. Bush's verbal gaffes played humor for liberals in 2000, but they humanized him and made him seem like a regular guy; and his overcoming of his alchoholism did the same in a more substantial way.
In 1952, when Adlai Stevenson was nominated by our party, he gave a tremendous speech, one of the best political speeches ever given in American politics.
Adlai Stevenson was a great speaker:
"When the tumult and the shouting die, when the bands are gone and the lights are dimmed, there is the stark reality of responsibility in an hour of history haunted with those gaunt, grim specters of strife, dissension, and materialism at home, and ruthless, inscrutable, and hostile power abroad. The ordeal of the twentieth century —the bloodiest, most turbulent age of the Christian era—is far from over. Sacrifice, patience, understanding, and implacable purpose may be our lot for years to come. ... Let’s talk sense to the American people! Let’s tell them the truth, that there are no gains without pains, that we are now on the eve of great decisions."
But it didn't matter. It alienated as many people as it won over. In a franker time, he was labelled an "egghead", and egghead he stayed. All the way to 1960, when he lost the nomination to John F. Kennedy.
There is no question voters see Hillary Clinton as human. Her mistakes are out there for all to see. For a person with so many supposedly character image problems, she is actually surpassing Obama in the humanization department.
Constitutional law professor, smart dude, and shining star Barack Obama. Will voters respond with admiration, or resentment and jealousy? Ironically, for Obama to improve his image, he might actually need to flub up somehow.
5. His Message will be undermined.
I fear the Clintons have screwed over the Democratic party by losing to Obama.
I fear Obama's message will NOT survive a general election. The real reason is Britney Spears, Daily Kos, and daytime soaps, but let me try to put it in terms people will accept:
His message is that he can transcend politics somehow, change the tone to something more positive, get beyond Republican versus Democrat, Red State versus Blue state.
But what will the media be showing in the summer and fall of 2008? Maps... showing polls. Some states red, some states blue. Roughly the same as in 2004. What will Obama say then? The truth will be laid bare: Obama represents the 'blue' states after all. He transcends nothing.
The General Election is going to be ugly. McCain is going to attack. Obama is going to attack. People are going to point out Obama's lobbyist and special interest money and his verbal inconsistencies. They are going to debate the actual issues,
they will debate Iraq
and health care
and the economy
and social issues
and Republicans and Democrats will find that they have very serious disagreements on them, which they cannot transcend or wipe away; any more than Henry Clay "The Great Compromiser" or Stephen Douglas could wipe away the very real disagreements on slavery. They will realize that polarization cannot be willed away; it will only go away when it either fizzles of its own accord because people stop caring about the issues, or if one side triumphs. Any student of history would have seen that from the very beginning.
And it is going to be ugly.
The Obama people won't know what hit them. "But Clinton tried this all against us, and it didn't work. Our message survived then. Why is it working for McCain? Why isn't our message surviving now? Why? Why?"
You can hear the almost pitiful cries.
It wont' be until then that the Obama people realize that it was the deep hatred and resentment of the Clintons in many corners of society-- among Republicans, among Democrats, among the media-- that did them in. It was the willful, instinctive distrust and dislike that always put the Hillary on the losing side of any battle about political character or trustworthiness. The Obama people will realize that they didn't win anything; Hillary lost. She lost because progressives and Democrats
were blind and played the right-wing game of bashing their strongest candidate- a candidate that combined experience and change and who would have left a competent, positive legacy for our party and our country.
They will see the thousands of Republicans who had "crossed over the line" or "said they'd vote for Obama" or "caucused for Obama" start to "reconsider". The tone of the "Obama Republicans" will subtly, gradually change. The Obama people will start to understand that Obama only looked good to those Republicans compared to Hillary; he no longer looks good now that the boogeywoman is gone. He has served his use for them; now he can be safely cast aside.
Obama's message will be drowned out in the negativity and the clash of the general election. He will be forced to act like just another politician- campaign not in Idaho or Kansas but in swing states. He will have to go on the attack, defend his record. In the process, by a slow and gradual but steady process of attrition, the magical rhetoric about 'hope' and 'change' and 'yes we can' will fade away.
In the end, on election night 2008, the lights will die down. The stickers and signs will be cast aside. The crowds will go away, into the privacy of their bedrooms; into the privacy of the voting booth the next morning.
And only two men will remain standing; metaphorically they will be naked.
One, a decorated war hero, prominent Senator for 20 years, a maverick... the other, a recent obscure state senator who rode the tidal wave of a movement that may at any time between now and election day go into recession.
I hope I am wrong. But there is another corner of Barack Obama's character-what he is made of, so to speak- that has yet to be revealed- we are about to turn that corner, and there is absolutely no guarantee of what we will see.