Posted on 06/25/2008 9:16:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Hon. Barack Obama hasn't yet reached Clintonesque levels of slickness, but this presidential campaign is still young and a whole summer of broken promises and general disenchantment with the Saint of Hyde Park has begun to set in.
For all its smooth, Internetted aspects, the Obama campaign begins to develop overtones of George McGovern's crack-up in the summer of 1972. Sen. McGovern was the beneficiary that year of the Democrats' newly rigged nominating system, which remains much the same. This year it allowed Barack Obama to cinch his party's nomination even as his rival was sweeping the popular vote in the big states.
George McGovern required only a few torrid weeks back in '72 to go from shining hope to utter incompetent. And now Barack Obama, the Different Kind of Presidential Candidate, has begun his metamorphosis into the same old kind of presidential candidate by backing away from his earlier promise to accept public financing.
Naturally, he claims it wasn't a promise at all but just a possibility, depending on whether John McCain would agree to accept public financing, too, which Sen. McCain did, and on various other escape clauses. We all know the drill by now: When caught in an obvious contradiction, obfuscate.
Another embarrassment: It seems that one of the political mavens Sen. Obama had scouting for a running mate enjoyed some fishy ties to Countrywide Credit, a key player in the subprime collapse.
But who didn't? By now both Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd, those two ethical paragons of the U.S. Senate, turn out to have gotten sweetheart deals from the kind of lenders the Democrats' class warriors usually tend to denounce. (John Edwards, D-Hypocrisy, is no longer in this presidential campaign but his spirit goes marching, or at least slinking, on.)
Naturally the country's New Hope waved off his veep-hunting scandal, explaining that he couldn't be expected to investigate his advisers' real estate deals. Of course not, especially since he didn't even investigate his own with Tony Rezko, that fellow pillar of the Daley machine in Chicago. Well, we can't say we weren't warned. Sen. Obama told us he was the candidate of Audacity.
It's all enough to remind some of us that poor George McGovern had problems finding a running mate, too. Back in the confusing year 1972, the McGovern-Eagleton ticket didn't even last till Election Day. Missouri's Tom Eagleton had to be dropped for lack of candor about some electric shock treatments he'd once received. Sen. Obama hasn't even made his vice-presidential pick yet and his veep problems have begun. When a trusted adviser who was going to vet his choice for vice president isn't adequately vetted himself, that says something less than assuring about what an Obama administration would be like.
Oh, tell it not at the Lyric Opera, publish it not in the Sun-Times, but how the mighty of Hyde Park have fallen. Some of us can remember when that leafy neighborhood wasn't a wholly protected subsidiary of the University of Chicago - the kind of effectively gated community and game preserve for Progressive Thinkers that it's become - but the home of giants like The Hon. and honorable Paul Douglas.
A forgotten figure who doesn't deserve to be, Sen. Douglas was a fighting Marine, true liberal and unwavering voice in the U.S. Senate for justice at home and freedom abroad, a fit companion for Scoop Jackson of cherished memory. In short, he was a more robust version of today's Lonely Joe Lieberman, that voice in the Democratic wilderness.
Sen. Obama's reversal when it comes to accepting public financing for his campaign was announced in the true spirit of our new Bobo - i.e., Bourgeois Bohemian - elite. (Thank you, David Brooks, for coining that now inescapable term when it comes to diagnosing the soft underside of the country's upper crust.) Sen. Obama explained that (a) he wasn't actually breaking his word, (b) it was really all John McCain's fault and, besides, (c) it's the system of public financing that's broken. As if it hadn't been just as broken when he made his pledge.
Skipping past these inconvenient truths, the senator from Upscale, Ill., now has issued a self-righteous statement taking the high ground while he himself opts for the low. Perfect. Perfect, self-serving hypocrisy. I can just see the look on old Paul Douglas' rugged face if he'd been asked to swallow a line that slick.
Some of us can hardly wait for St. Barack's next sly descent to the nether regions of politics, which of course will be described as but the next phase in his Holy Ascension.
If this is change and hope in American presidential politics, what, pray tell, would be steady disillusion? The country may find out soon enough. The long, slow McGovern summer of B. Obama could be just beginning.
“Confusion to our enemies!”
Exactly. Our biggest threat is the ignorance and complacency and indoctrination of the “masses”/sheeple. Useful Idiots is a perfect term.
“There is a significant age difference, and for the first time since RFK, you have a candidate of “the younger generation.”
Wasn’t Clinton the second youngest president ever elected, and younger than Obama? And, he was the candidate of the younger generation to a significant degree.
“In short, Obama is being touted as the “messiah” without anyone reading-—or if they have read, caring about-—his actual policies,”
That’s true, and I think the messiah followers will eventually be limited to the very young voters, hard core leftists, guilt ridden whites, and black voters. He’s looked very unimpressive often lately, and I expect that will continue as he must bring something to the general campaign other than his cotton candy, hope and change, change and hope mantra.
“I think McCain could easily be in for a Dem landslide. “
McCain has many faults and I can scarcely stand to watch him speak, but Obama has so many faults also that are becoming more apparent. I think these are the two worst candidates probably ever, and the big landslide could go in either direction depending on who screws up the most, or simply becomes the poorest campaigner from here until November.
“A major problem is that the MSM, Newsweek, Bloomberg, CNN all have a poll a day showing The Messiah above ole John by 12-15 points nationally.”
But recall President Dukakis had a 17 point lead after the Dem. convention in 1988, later in the game than now.
And Rudy had those “prohibitive” leads for the Republican nomination for months and months, and Fred was running a strong second and threatening to take the lead.
And Hillary was setting out for here coronation early this year.
These polls mean next to nothing until six or eight weeks before the vote, and even then surprising events can change things quickly.
It’s simple, really. The Republican’s don’t have a case to make. As the article states, on issues there is little difference. Yet another case of dumb and dumber.
The correct question to ask, is what is wrong with this country, that we can’t get a decent candidate to oppose the nonsense of the left.
It truly makes me marvel all the more about the genius that was Reagan’s. That he could actually get the Republican party off it’s ass and DO something sensible; Incredible.
2) Clinton, while a Baby Boomer, was just one generation removed from his opponent. Obama is two generations removed from McCain---much bigger gap than Carter/Reagan.
I'm here in OH. I do think there will be significant "hillbilly" blue-collar voting for McCain (against Obama) but not nearly enough to overcome the liberal whites/white guilt. Every day I drive through Oakwood, a rich suburb that in 2004 was about 60/40 Kerry, but had some Bush support. Today, the only signs and bumper stickers you see are Obama. I live in a more southern suburb that is much wealthier (median, though not average) and much younger. Every day I see new Hummers with Obama signs. This election won't be pretty.
To the undereducated and selfish in this country (a majority, by the way) he is CHANGE. The fact that it is just for 'Change's Sake' doesn't matter. They see change as meaning they get an even bigger slice of the pie and nasty ole whitey businessman (aka, the MAN), gets screwed like he should.
Couple this with the fact that the GOP has seemed to acquiesce and let the MSM and the NYT nominate our current candicate, you have one big GOP disaster in the making.
McCain will lose this election on a scale equivalent to the historic landslide that Reagan won.
Why do you all think "more knowledge" will change voters' minds? It's not about knowledge! It's not about policies. It's not about experience. It's about IMAGE and apparently no one on our side has figured that out.
“A major problem is that the MSM, Newsweek, Bloomberg, CNN all have a poll a day showing The Messiah above ole John by 12-15 points nationally.”
The real point is that polls this far from the general election (and even primary votes) have been spectacularly inaccurate on many occasions. They mean little because so much can happen, positive and negative, for each candidate.
“Obama is two generations removed from McCain-—much bigger gap than Carter/Reagan.”
Not really, 72 and 47 is 25 years, just one generation, or slightly less with the average age of marriage these days around 26.
I think both candidates are so flawed that either could seriously damage his chances more than once between now and November. Just too early to draw any confident conclusions yet.
As for educating those conservatives out here that have no impulse to vote for McCain about the increasing dangers of an Obama presidency I have something to say about that. If the danger is so damn great and the consequences so damn monumental, just why in cowboy hell did we allow this man (McCain) to end up being OUR standard bearer. Asking someone to see the logic in something so patently illogical is pure ass insane.
I personally don't think any Republican could be Obama this year without making a firm, consistent, and well-argued conservative case for drilling, for foreign affairs, and so on. Not one of the candidates who had any shot at winning could do so.
You’re right.
It’s all about perception.
It’s not about what Obama is ~ it’s about what they want to see.
He plays that hand very, very well.
I still remember the first time I ever heard him speak, years ago.
A chill of fear went up my spine. I turned to my husband and said,
“God help us if he ever runs for President.”
If you look at W's 2000 campaign, it was very effective: he looked younger than Gore; he had and stuck to three main speaking points; and he solidified his base early and called on it often. Never once after the campaign started did he EVER alienate his base. (Yes, after he became president, but not during the campaign).
McCain looks older (a LOT older) than Obama; he is a terrible speaker; he is seen as having no "new" ideas; and he cannot draw on a conservative base. Indies are fine as swing voters, but name me one time indies went out and knocked on doors and made phone calls. It doesn't happen.
You were prescient. And he brings all the civil rights agenda (white guilt, mass black turnout, ‘da youts) without it being accompanied by the very real, and threatening, black gansta culture that NO ONE will vote for. Hence the deception.
“If the danger is so damn great and the consequences so damn monumental, just why in cowboy hell did we allow this man (McCain) to end up being OUR standard bearer.”
I’ve thought about that one many times since Super Tuesday in early February. McCain became the nominee with scarcely 40% of the vote. He won mostly blue states, and big winner take all states, and states like Vermont with crossovers. A damned unrepresentative mess. And, since there are never runoffs, we never have a second choice vote, and with five or six candidates who were viable at times, the non-McCain vote was split five ways in the early votes. AND, the movement of evangelicals to Huckabee instead of Romney was a big factor, along with the collapse of Rudy’s campaign.
And another question that I think should have received far more attention and thought. After the November, 2004 election, the Republicans were in the strongest position they’d been in in most anyone’s memory, or maybe ever. Bush had won by a bigger margin than in 2000, 3,000,000 popular votes, and we held the Congress in mid-terms and presidential years far better than was historically the case.
In November, 2004, Republicans had never been that strong since pre_WWII, if ever. What the hell happened in less than two years???
Corruption, war, and high gas prices.
The near total capitulation of this country to illegals (aka McCain-Kennedy), WITH GWB's support I might add.
Concentrated efforts by Dems to elect Vets (Gimme a hundred vets and I'll take the hill).
Continuous berating and lying about WMDs by the libs and MSM with not one damn rebuttal from GWB
House sex scandels (e.g., the Florida homo)
Having been in charge for 4+ years with a TOTAL triumvirate dominance in government and not a damn thing to speak of for it save 'we're still in IRAQ' (while not calling out the MSM for lying about the war)......
Don't you think this is enough? Notice how I refrained from saying that McCain, all the while, was busy stabbing our collective backs in the balance.
Excellent point.
The civil rights agenda MINUS the black gangsta culture.
His stupid gaffes only seem to endear him more.
I can’t see him losing, at this point.
And here I was, reading the headline and all the while thinking descent, not the downward spiral but rather the removal of odor.
“Reagan actually looked pretty close to Carter in age. Obama looks 40 years younger than McCain. But I keep talking image. You think that quoting future poll results and a critique of existing polls = victory. Good luck.”
You don’t know yet how the majority of Ameicans will view the images of the two candidates. Youth doesn’t always win elections. Reagan destroyed two younger candidates. You’re projecting your view of things onto the entire population. Time will tell.
“You think that quoting future poll results and a critique of existing polls = victory. Good luck.”?
Huh? You’re the one quoting polls (present polls) and drawing conclusions. I’ve said they mean nothing now, and even running up to the vote things can still change.
And, precisely how does one quote future poll results?
You’re drawing waaaay too many conclusions so early.;
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.