I saw a young, personable politician on The Tonight Show being interviewed by Jay Leno after a noteworthy speech at the Democratic Convention, nominating the party's candidate. I said to my wife "That man is going to be President." His name was Bill Clinton and his speech was noteworthy for its long-windedness.
A while ago, again I saw a young, personable politician on The Tonight Show being interviewed by Jay Leno who had also gained fame after a noteworthy speech at the Democratic Convention, nominating the party's candidate. I said to my wife "That man is going to be President." His name was Barack Obama and his speech was noteworthy for its inspiring oratory.
Every now and then I have a sense for the inevitable.
I am not a fan of Barack Obama for President, but that's only because I don't need to be. I will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate over whomever the Republicans nominate. I will do so because the Republican party is utterly hopeless. It has devolved into a pseudo-criminal organization that stands for the wealth of the few over the welfare of the many. It's core objective is to perpetuate its own power at all costs. It produces officials who are not only incompetent at governing but also at odds with the basic premise of government. It is moving quickly toward the narrowest place in the American political and social spectrum as the party of the super-wealthy, the international imperialists, the Deep South bigots, and the destructively religious. It is inpossible for me, at this time, to envision a Republican candidate whom I would vote for over a Democrat in any remotely foreseeable election in which I would be eligible to vote.
I never used to feel this way. As a "thinking voter" I always tried to size up the candidate him or herself. Now, as a thinking voter, the GOP causes me as much apprehension as did Lyndon LaRouche and his myrmidons. I will never, never, ever vote for a Republican candidate unless and until a Republican ran who repudiated virtually the past 20 years of Republican history and called for the war crimes trial of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. If I could not vote for a Democratic candidate, I would vote Independent, Green, or Libertarian, or I would write in a vote before I would vote Republican.
The Democrats now have me at "hello" if for no other reason than to keep Republicans out of office.
So, what of Barack Obama?
He's going to declare his candidacy. That's what. And he's going to win the primary and the general. That's what, too. Tom Vilsack and Joe Biden, in the Obama story, will become like eluded tacklers in a star running back's highlight reel, grasping for shirt and gasping for air. Sorry, John Edwards fans, but his signature issue, poverty, can be co-opted easily by Obama. Bill Richardson has the resume but not the profile. Hilary Clinton is the "last throes" of dynasty politics for which Obama is the antithesis. John Kerry is a valiant Democratic soldier but is also sorely damaged goods. Wes Clark doesn't have the horses. Oh. I forgot Dennis Kucinich--which makes my point about him.
I'm old enough to remember when President Reagan's campaign feared Gary Hart (before the infamous "Follow me around" scandal) might beat Walter Mondale for the nomination and give the D's something new that would be hard for Reagan to challenge. This is the single biggest reason the Republicans fear Obama. He is not a Clinton. He is not a Bush. He is not Kerry, Biden, or even John McCain. He is just enough Washington to be national and just enough Springfield to be local. He is the outsider like Jimmy Carter was after the Nixon disaster, like Reagan pretended to be after Carter's malaise, like Bill Clinton who stood in sharp contrast to the George H.W. Bush old guard, and like George W. Bush who came to "unite" the country after Clinton. Oh, if only more knew then ...
See the pattern: Carter ran against Nixon, though his opponent was Ford. Reagan ran against Carter twice, though his second opponent was Mondale. Clinton ran against giving the Republicans a fourth term in the White House. And Bush 43 painted Al Gore with the Clinton brush.
As for Obama's opponent, is McCain just as inevitable a candidate? Perhaps. Mitt Romney and McCain will compete for the far-right vote but Romney is no national candidate. He already has too many issues to be elected President and McCain's people will hammer him for it. Rudy Giuliani will capture what's left of the disappearing Republican moderate vote, but can't win the nomination on a bloc that last produced a President in Eisenhower. Republicans have drifted so far to the right, Newt Gingrich and Sam Brownback make McCain look moderate. Gov. Mike Huckabee? Does anyone seriously think an Arkansas governor and ordained minister can appeal beyond the GOP's religious right, which McCain is already courting? Duncan Hunter? Someone has to be the R's Vilsack. Meanwhile, McCain is the only military man the GOP can offer. That will count big-time in the primary as well as in the general.
But the tried-and-true, Vietnam veteran/POW, long-tenured Senator McCain is already set up to fail. McCain's achingly long history in Washington is his achilles heel in the general. Here's a slogan for Obama: "There's some experience we DON'T need." The generations that produced McCain also brought us George W. Bush, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Delay, Nordquist, and a sputtering, failed ideology. The well is dry. The vein has been mined. At the end, they brought us the Iraq debacle, the Abramoff corruption and the Katrina misery. They have brought failure, inequity, and outright destruction. At some point, the nation will painfully realize 9/11 happened on their watch. The Republican party has experienced catastrophic failure across-the-board.
The ultra right is already terrified of Obama. Moderates and independents won't vote McCain, period. He's burning his moderate bridges already, and has to in order to win the primary by running to the wackos. It will get him the nomination but that's it. That's why some have already trotted out Obama's middle name and his late father's religion as issues. It already failed, even among conservatives (many excellent diaries exist on this already--no need to restate them here). Anyone that was going to work with wasn't going to vote for a Democrat anyway, and these Republicans just shaped and handed to the Democrats a finely tuned "wedge issue" to use with the middle of the elctorate--Republicans: If you hate, vote for us.
"Lack of expeience"? Bah. Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer and state legislator who had just lost his Senate race. But he was a briliant politician. And what kind of "experience" is Obama up against in the other candidates, besides McCain? The White House loves governors lately, but Romney and Huckabee are small fish with their own problems, discussed above. Brownback and Hunter will take so much time explaining who they are, no one will know what they did. And Gingrich's "experience" will only mobilize the Dems like it's nobody's business.
Anyway, intelligence and character can trump experience especially if the experience is bad. I ask you, after six years, if experience was all that and a slice of cheese, how has George W. Bush become a worse president? Let me block that so you don't miss it:
After six years, George W. Bush is worse at his job.
Now en Francaise:
Apres de six ans, George W. Bush est merde.
In bad times, "new direction" trumps "experience." Take it to the bank.
How about Obama and foreign policy, a critical "experience subset"? We are in period when international affairs are paramount. To Dubya, "international" meant moving from Connecticut to the Republic of Texas. So what are Obama's "International credentials?" I see a young, untainted Senator who can speak to an entire African continent and has a greater link to a billion Muslims than any Western political leader imaginable. To anyone who can think at all, these are assets, not liabilities.
What about the two issues you can't talk about in a job interview: Race and Age? McCain will look doddering next to Obama's vitality. No one will say it out loud but you can bet that everyone will know, if McCain is elected and re-elected (and I think we're getting a two-termer here for sure), he will be 80 in his final year in office.
Go over all those youth vote diaries lately, and add this fact: under a state law authored by Obama, highschool students assisted at the Illinois polls in 2006, side-by-side with the septagenarian election judges. The kids get two years older, young voters come out big, andthat segment goes to Obama in a walk. Besides, McCain isn't just old in years, he's old in thinking. He doesn't just represent the past, he is the past--one we don't want to restore. He's not "Morning in America," he's "The Twilight Zone." And the more Bushass he kisses, the better I like it. Hold on to that, John-boy, and don't ever let go. Loser.
The race issue is tough. I admit, that's the one I keep bumping up against. Millions will vote against Obama on that matter alone. But they weren't likely Dem voters anyway. It comes down to the closet racists, then. A recommended diary today asks whether Obama is "Black enough" but I think he threads the needle on this like it's nobody's business. The mobilization we will see in the African-American community will dwarf anything we've ever seen before. Besides, Obama is so urbane, so witty, so articulate that he just has a way of making "race" disappear, the way we all want it to be in public discourse. On another racial note, Hispanics, already leaning strong toward Democrats, are a separte question. Will Hispanics be motivated to vote for Obama because he is, like them, a racial minority? I don't know. I invite comment on this issue.
So what's remaining to stop Obama? The religious right is out there to oppose any Democratic candidate. But look at this past electionary fizzle. They did not materialize. The clout is waning. Their pinnacle was mobilizing an idiotic Congress and Presidnet on the Teri Schiavo matter--a pyrrhic victory if ever there was one. And neutralizing this obstacle, for all you who criticized him, is exactly what Obama was thinking about when he addressed Evangelicals in Orange County. Obams is not "courting" the religious right; he's sowing doubt. What do you think the Republicans have done for years to key elements of the old FDR coalition? Exactly this. A Democrat doesn't need to "win over" the religious right, just blunt it as a political weapon, and a great way to do that is to co-opt just enough of them. Watch for this strategy to unfold over 2007 and 2008 and drive McCain batshit crazy, or crazier.
Kos has already analyzed the primaries, finding the nomination (at this VERY EARLY STAGE) to be Barack's to lose. I don't disagree; if he has the funding, the nomination is indeed Obama's to lose. I don't see Al Gore running, I just don't. And an early Obama announcement could force Clinton to think about whether she wants to do this. I see her as a fantastic SCOTUS nominee and I hope she does, too, coming from a state where the Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer would appoint another Democrat. I would welcome Associate Supreme Court Justice Hilary Clinton with an open heart and open arms--the first step in re-taking the Court away from extremists.
The electoral breakdown is just as friendly. Give Obama all the Gore/Kerry states, easy. Obama (or any Democrat) wins if you toss in Florida--something that might be possible this time around. Instead, why not throw in Ohio, which is even more likely since we're talking about a Midwesterner in Obama and a state with a Democratic renaissance. Plus there will be "surprise" states in play, maybe from among Arkansas, Colorado, Virginia, or Kentucky. Remember, there is no GOP candidate out of Texas, not that Obama will win Texas, but he will make the Republicans defend. We saw what happened in November when they had to squander resources (so long, Sen. Chaffee), and I don't think the Democratic wave is over; a host of Congressional hearings will see to that. Other states of note that could help tip it for Obama are Arizona and New Mexico. Hell, he's frikkin' Hawaiian by birth so this state with a Republican governor will in all liklihood try to lay claim to the First Hawaiian President.
I hope, dear reader, that you understand in writing this diary, I am not making a case for Barack Obama. I am trying to make the case against him. And I am coming up short.
The final thing I have to say is this: So much of a presidential election is about personal appeal. Yes, it is a popularity contest--the most important one on the planet. Anyone who has seen the man on TV knows he exudes raw charisma, almost in pulsating waves. I saw David Gergen and Pat Buchanan debating this on Hardball recently. Gergen is slowing swining behind Obama and even Buchanan could not knock down the personality factor. Both compared him not to John F. Kennedy but to Bobby Kennedy. I remember JFK and RFK and agree wholeheartedly, and like him or leave him, David Gergen is the closest thing this country has to political zenmaster. He has a perspective that sees beyond parties, beyond individuals, and into trendlines like tectonic plates.
Returning from business in Washington DC earlier this year on a connecting flight through Chicago, as I was assuming my seat in coach, I glanced up and there he was: Barack Obama. Flying coach back to Chicago. Everyone wanted to be by him, see him, shake his hand, talk to him. He could have been George Clooney, or Paul McCartney, in another age, Elvis, Sinatra, or any number of other world-class, generations-transcending celebrities (not that they'd be brilliant enough to fly coach). The attendants had to clear the aisles so we could take off. If there was ever a better microcosm of the likely-to-vote electorate than a Washington-to-Chicago flight, you need to tell me what it is.
Barockstar Obamapalooza. Whether you think he's right for it or wrong for it, the stars don't form an exploatory committee before they align. And candidates don't run when they know they can win, they run when they think they have their best chance.
Now is his time.Black enough