So apparently the latest concern trolling on the candidacy of Barack Obama stems from the fact that he seems to appeal to some Republicans who voted for Bush.
Oh the horror! The Democrats could choose a demonstrably progressive presidential candidate who the Republican electorate has not already decided they won't vote for! He must be evil and incompetent and anti-progressive if Republicans don't hate him and even find him a little charming and inspiring!
Seriously, folks, I've seen some of this sort of sentiment cropping up on discussion of the election and in some articles so I think it's a worthy point to debate as I simply don't believe that the Hillary hatred that exists in this country is something that will immediately go to Obama and Edwards should she be defeated.
But in this piece by Joe Conason at salon.com titled "Why Conservatives Love Obama", he makes the case that conservatives only say they love him because they think he can beat Hillary but they think they can beat him and that their hate for Hillary will be immediately transferred upon Obama or whatever nominee the Democrats choose once the primary is over.
Obama and his supporters must cherish no illusions about what will happen to him if he vanquishes Clinton. He will need the same kind of armor that she has worn proudly for years. What the right likes best about him is that he doesn't seem to own any.
Sorry if it's cherishing an illusion, but I don't think that's a totally accurate read on the situation. He will need to protect himself, but not with the same armor and spin and hiding in the bunker the way the Clintons have at times. Instead, Obama's best bet it is to use the teflon of his charisma and proud reputation of integrity and honesty to defeat charges against him and I truly believe that those weapons are what is needed to defeat the Republicans this year.
And I'm especially distrustful of Conason's meme given that it's being fed in such large doses to the establishment media by the Clintonistas who stand to benefit the most from that becoming the conventional wisdom.
Because the idea that Clinton haters will suddenly transfer that hatred onto whatever candidate the Democrats nominate assumes that the hatred of Hillary Clinton is based on her policies or her party. News flash: for the most part the 15-year built-up hatred or distrust of Clinton that's out there has little to do with her politics or her party (as I would think even the Hillary supporters at DKos would attest given the chilly reception she has from some here... including me, in full disclosure). A large segment of Americans, right or wrong, simply just aren't that into her whether it's because they are turned off by her campaign, if they think she's too secretive or standoffish, whether they have Clinton fatigue or they think she's too poll-driven, if they don't like her looks and are sexist, if they don't understand why she stayed married to Bill, or because they don't like or trust Bill right now and want something new, etc...
And you know what? None of those particular feelings I listed held by Clinton haters will be transferred immediately upon the candidacy of John Edwards or Barack Obama should one of them become the nominee nor in the span of a 9 month campaign can the depth and intensity of those feelings the right has for Hillary be transferred in that short of time onto the other Democratic candidates.
Sure, those guys will be subject to their own Rush rants and be subject to their own attacks and have their own haters who stereotype Edwards because of his past as a trial lawyer or distrust his populism the same way some stupid bigots may not like Obama if they buy the smears he is an Islamist Manchurian candidate or just are racist, but the great thing about Edwards and Obama is they actually have an abundance of CHARM and a COMPELLING MESSAGE to deflect false or misleading critiques of them, which I simply don't think Hillary has (nor did Gore and Kerry).
Why do some Republicans like Obama? Well, I don't buy the idea that all these conservative pundits are saying positive things about him solely out of making the calculation of setting him up for a fall given polling actually shows good things for Obama in terms of electability over the Republican field. My theory is that a lot of these folks are expecting a Democratic president in 2008 no matter what happens and just see Obama as the best potential president in the field. The fear of Hillary on the right isn't fear of Hillary as a candidate, but fear of another Clinton presidency. That's an important difference.
I also don't buy the idea that Republicans are conspiring to sabotage the Democrats by talking up Obama as part of some Rovian conspiracy because as the ascendancy of Mike Huckabee has shown, the GOP elders aren't really in control of their own party right now so they have enough to worry about over there.
My theory on why some conservatives like Obama is simply because when he speaks he makes them feel good inside about America the same way Ronald Reagan did (and the same way many Democrats say he makes them feel the same way the Kennedys did) and in a way that the Bushes never could tug at their heartstrings with their oratory and in a way in which Bill Clinton tried to appeal to them and failed because they didn't think he was sincere. That's what I'm seeing. And more than anything Americans want a candidate with a hopeful message, whoever it is and whatever party he comes from.
Bush has preached to America nothing but fear for the last eight years and it's not just Democrats who are seeking a more hopeful message. That's the same reason so many of them have flocked to Huckabee despite Rudy's 9/11 popularity and Romney's CEO and establishment connections.
Obama has stellar progressive bonafides when one looks at his record, but his personality and the authenticity he projects amongst most voters trumps ideology and the great thing about it is THIS TIME the progressive agenda would have that uniting figure as the face of our party and we'd have a truly great standard-bearer for this party who could not just win this election, but if he does his job could totally change this country in terms of shattering the GOP's Southern State strategy and have many people attracted to his candidacy decide they are Democrats for for the next few decades the same way Reagan stole so many Democrats from us.
Also, a big thing I think some overlook is that despite what a disaster Bush-Cheney is and how awful DeLay and the rest are/were, not all Republicans are the devil, especially when it comes to those voters. The truth is that for some Republican voters the "party of Lincoln" business isn't just lip service. Not all Republicans are Jesus freaks or have Confederate flags hanging in their homes. In fact, some distrust religion even more than they distrust government use of their tax dollars.
Those are just a couple of the reasons I think some Republicans could cross over and support Obama, besides the fact that I think Obama would become somewhat of a hero to them if he could be the one to slay the Clintons after the GOP failed so miserably all these years.
The Clinton hatred is real and visceral and it's not entirely rational at this point. For anyone to claim that Barack Obama shouldn't be our nominee because Republicans MIGHT come to hate him in the future despite the polling suggesting he is quite electable just makes no sense. That's like saying we better vote to invade Iraq because Saddam MIGHT have weapons of destruction even though none have been found. ;)
UPDATED:
And to reinforce my point that Republicans really do want to run against Hillary, something from Politicotoday:
GQ has a January piece about "The Hillary Haters," illustrated by a scarecrow of the Senator. The piece is largely an inch-deep swing and a miss, although it does pick up on the right's bizarre obsession with Peter Paul. Playbook wondered for awhile but now is sure: There's no triple-reverse psychology going on. Republicans really do want Clinton, largely because she gives them a chance to make up for their own financial and motivational weaknesses. Obama fits the times, is less defined and is inoffensive to many Republicans - but is viewed as more prone to make a huge mistake.
UPDATED AGAIN:
Oh, more reason to worry... Sounds like David Broder has a crush on Barack Obama. ;)
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Barack Obama has become a one-trick pony. But what a trick it is!
The stump speech he has developed in the closing stages of the pre-Christmas campaign is a thing of beauty, a 40-minute oration delivered without notes that is powering his gains for the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 and the first primary here in New Hampshire five days later.
Hillary Clinton has nothing to match it. John Edwards has periodic bursts of eloquence. But Obama has reached the point of being able to deliver the speech on demand and to reach audiences with assured effect. It has become his security blanket.
The speech was introduced at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Des Moines more than a month ago, when Obama was still struggling for leverage against Clinton and Edwards in Iowa. It drew rave reviews from that big audience and from Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen, and Obama knew he had a winner.
He gave it again to the Democratic National Committee at its candidate forum in Northern Virginia and won accolades. So he gave it four more times, when he toured with Oprah Winfrey through Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Manchester; and Columbia, S.C., thrilling about 60,000 people at the four venues.
He has now delivered it in small towns all over Iowa, and here in New Hampshire he did it six more times in two days last week.
It is a helluva speech. Like some Beethoven symphonies, it starts on a rather calm and even lighthearted note. He hits an early applause line by reminding audiences that next year "George Bush's name will not be on the ballot." Democrats cheer the prospective departure of the man they despise. And then Obama jokes, "Neither will my cousin, Dick Cheney. What an embarrassment to discover he was part of the family."
He segues to a standard riff about the importance of the coming election, quickly converting it into a pointed attack on Hillary Clinton, although he does not name her. Given the stakes, he says, it is not enough just to change parties or presidents in this election. "We have to change politics. The same old games won't do; triangulating and trimming won't do."
Then Obama pays his respect to Edwards-style populism, ragging on a Washington where health care and energy legislation have been stymied for years by corporate lobbyists -- none of whom, he promises, will get the time of day from an Obama administration.
Then he quickens the pulses of various Democratic constituencies, promising labor to raise the minimum wage each and every year; promising teachers generous salaries; and promising college students new help in paying tuition.
And finally, comes the peroration, quoting Martin Luther King Jr. on the "fierce urgency of now," in explaining why he can't patiently wait his turn to run for president. It's a bit of a reach because he wants to draw another contrast with Hillary. Unlike others, he says, he has not planned to run for years and he does not regard the presidency as his entitlement.
The closing anecdote is based on an incident at a rally in Greenwood, S.C., where, on a miserable morning, with a meager crowd, a single black woman in the audience first revived Obama's spirit by shouting out encouragement and then got everyone chanting, responsively, "Fired up!" "Ready to go!"
As he tells the familiar story, Obama segues from a conversational tone to a shout and explains that the chant has now become his trademark and slogan. So, he tells his listeners, "I've got one thing to ask you. Are you FIRED UP? Are you READY TO GO? FIRED UP! READY TO GO!"
And then, as the shouting becomes almost too loud to bear, he adds the five words that capsulize his whole message and sends the voters scrambling back into their winter coats and streaming out the door: "Let's go change the world," Obama says. And it sounds as if he means it.
In every audience I have seen, there is a jolt of pure electric energy at those closing words. Tears stain some cheeks -- and some people look a little thunderstruck.