I am sorry for not posting yesterday. I was pretty busy, and I collapsed on the couch when I got home. I am hoping to get a lot done today so I can take some time off tomorrow, we'll see how that goes.
A couple weeks ago, I said I was going to start a Tuesday Talk weekly discussion, but it has turned out to be a one time thing. So, to get the ball rolling again, I am having a Thursday Talk, and I hope to start back on Tuesdays next week.
This week's topic is Barack Obama, and his apparent inability to capitalize on zeitgeist and fundraising to threaten Hillary Clinton's march to the Democratic nomination.
I have to say I was intrigued by Obama when he made his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. He certainly had a way with words that harkened back to the mastery of Bill Clinton. Indeed, when I was 13 in 1988, I recall thinking some of the same things about Clinton, when he gave his endless keynote speech at that year's convention. However, as he worked for a few years in the Senate and then started to believe his own hype enough to jump into the 2008 election, my thoughts turned away from his communication skills to his absolute lack of political prudence.
While it is certainly not an original thought, politics in Washington has taken on a life of its own, and as much as we complain about career politicians, the fact of the matter is that political neophytes, especially idealists, will not survive long. This is why it was important for Obama to cook for at least one term in the Senate before running for President. I do not want to say that it is not possible for a political novice or at least a novice to the ways of Washington to thrive and prosper as President, but it really does not take a rocket scientist to take a look at the failures of the Governor from Texas and realize that America's tolerance for inexperience may be precipitously lower. Granted, ego is a horrible thing to contend with, and if Obama had sat out 2008 and Hillary Clinton or another Democrat was elected, then the first time Obama could legitimately make a run would be in 2016, which would actually have been perfect because it would have been at the end of his second term in the Senate. He could have had enough time to work on his platform and pet projects, and he would have stood as a candidate ready to make change -- not just one who talks about it.
Even with all of her faults, practically no one will begrudge the fact that Hillary Clinton has the experience to lead. As for Obama, he was a Illinois State Senator for four years before trying a 2000 primary challenge to incumbent Rep. Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther. It was a failed attempt where he was portrayed as an "educated fool," and probably where the idea that he wasn't "black enough" originated. Then he ran for the open Senate seat in 2004 against a much better funded Republican candidate, Jack Ryan. The thing most people forget after Obama's coronation at the Democratic convention is that he was way behind in the polls and likely to lose. Fortunately for Obama, Ryan's preponderance to force his former wife, actress Jeri Ryan, to visit sex clubs came roaring into the news, and Obama rode that scandal and his Democratic "Golden Boy" status to the Senate. Bottom line, 8 years as a State Senator and 4 years as a United States Senator does not really prepare anyone for the highest office in the land.
The fact that Clinton is trouncing Obama in the polls, even though he has matched her almost dollar for dollar in the fundraising department, just proves how unprepared he is for the job. While I cannot say I have followed the current campaign down to the smallest detail, I would be hard pressed to give you any details as to how Obama will achieve his goals. I know he is against the war in Iraq, for universal health care, and the audacity of hope, but for instance, how does he plan to achieve universal health care by the end of his first term, as he has promised? In fact, the only thing he can really do is, just like whiny John Edwards, is to keep hammering Clinton on her vote for the war in Iraq. He goes so far as to say that if he had been in the Senate, he would not have voted for the war at all, and while that may very well be the case, the fact of the matter is that he was NOT in the Senate. Hillary Clinton made the decision on all the information that was available to her at the time, even if it ended up being falsified. She has stated that if she knew now what she knew then, she would not have voted "yes." This should be enough, but Obama keeps bringing it up, as if political hindsight is not 20/20. Of course, now he has Clinton's vote on Iran to drive the point home, but let's face it, Iran is more of a threat than Iraq ever was. Plus, if Obama was so passionate in his stance towards Iran, maybe he should have bothered to show up for the vote. Indeed, he has missed 23.7% of the votes this year, which is almost three times the number that Clinton has missed.
Now, in an act of political desperation, Obama has connected with evangelical minister Donnie McClurkin to shore up his standings with African-Americans. For Obama's Compassion and Unity Tour, he will be be sharing the stage with a hate monger who advocates war against homosexuals. Compassion and Unity, indeed. This is a massive misstep. So massive, that he should really rethink his campaign staff. Obama has released an official statement that says he does not agree with McClurkin's stances on homosexuals. However, if he disagrees, why are the joint appearances still happening?
How to solve a problem like Barack? I certainly do not think he is going to win the nomination, and personally, I think Clinton would be crazy to pick him as a VP. As much as I do not want to acknowledge the bigotry of America, I just do not think a lot of people will be able to handle both a woman and African-American on the same ticket. Obviously, joining together their popularity might be too hard to resist, but I still think Obama needs more experience to even be a VP. Al Gore and Dick Cheney (good or ill..mostly ill) have been the most powerful Vice Presidents ever, and to think that Obama could fill either of their shoes is just pretty laughable. Plus, the VP candidate is going to be an automatic third place behind Hillary and Bill, and I just do not think Obama's ego will allow him to do that. So, all I have to say is: Go Obama 2016!
2 comments:
Well I think to understand why Barack is still trailing you have to look at the way the candidates on both sides are acting. So far, in relationship to previous primaries, this has been a tame one. Granted voting hasn't started and the smell of desperation isn't on the wind quite yet, but still awfully tame. The candidates are letting the pundits do the punching for them. The republicans use their time at the debates to lambast Clinton. Sure you have a few rocks hurled the way of Rudy but for the most part they are all jockeying for the most conservative, and the easiest way is “Look at socialist Hillary over there.” We are nothing like her. Even on the Democrats side they are all taking pot shots at Clinton if they take any at all. So with that in mind who gets the most press coverage? I think first and foremost it’s the republicans and most of that is “Fred Thompson didn’t fall down, is that what we want.” “Mitt said then Mitt said.” “Can Rudy take Hillary in a national election?” “Wow Ron Paul raised money, who is he again?” “Who’s Huckabee?”
The Dems really as far a strategy is concerned so far good the focus is on the republicans and their squabbles. That just means the Democrats don’t have to spend as much $$ leading up to the primaries. Nobody is slinging hard mud yet so no one has made the news cycle. I really think too many of the Democrats are not in it to win but to get a voice heard and the rest are running for VP there are three looking at president I believe and that would be Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. If the Latter two really want it they have to, sadly, come out swinging and swinging hard. They got a lot to break through with the how disappointing is the president and the republican candidates.
The president may not be relevant for the most part but he keeps interrupting the news cycle enough to take the focus off the election. Even when the story is the election most of it comes down to who can be less like W and nobody likes the war thanks W. So there you have why I think Barack cannot capitalize on popularity and money raised.
I think you bring up some valid points, but the fact of the matter is that Barack seems incapable of seizing the news cycle. Outside of the Donnie McClurkin thing, which is really just a blogosphere hubbub, Obama cannot seem to get any traction whatsoever.
We are technically a little over two months away from the first votes being cast, and the Holidays are not the time to make a name for yourselves. So, if Obama cannot come up with some sort of strategy to prove he can do the job before Thanksgiving, he's pretty much toast.
Not even Oprah can save him...
Post a Comment