• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama Doomed?

Mike

Well-known member
Drift and complacency are dooming Obama's campaign
United Press International (UPI) ^ | August 22, 2008 | MARTIN SIEFF


Sen. Barack Obama heads into his nominating convention in Denver next week on the skids: Four years ago Sen. John Kerry, the doomed Democratic contender against President George W. Bush, was in a far stronger position heading for his nominating convention in Boston than Obama is now.

Three major polls this week put Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican putative presidential nominee, either breaking even or ahead of Obama by as much as 3 percentage points. McCain's gaffe about how many houses he owns isn't likely to significantly change the situation. Obama's eagerness to zero in on it makes a mockery of his overconfident and naive pledge to stay positive throughout his campaign.

Devastating to Obama is the polling data that say as many as 20 percent of Hillary Clinton supporters now say they will vote for McCain. Obama, riding into a convention where his nomination is assured, therefore remains burdened by a resentful, confused and highly divided party, even though there are actually no major contentious issues that should divide it. It is McCain, against all the Conventional Wisdom predictions of earlier this year, who presides over an increasingly united party rallying to his support.

The race is obviously far from over, but the skid in Obama's standings over the past month has been extraordinary: The Dog Days of August, so fatal to Democratic nominees like Kerry and Michael Dukakis in 1988, have eaten Obama alive, too.

Obama has committed no obvious super-blunders, but he has had his share of embarrassing bloopers, as has McCain. The campaign for the presidency of the United States is now so grueling that either of the main contestants would have had to come from the planet Krypton to be immune to its pressures. However, the mainstream U.S. media have magnified and even distorted McCain's every hiccup and ignored the far more numerous gaffes from Obama.

The idea that race has become a key issue in the campaign is also absurd. It is true that 9 percent of those polled in one survey said they were reluctant to vote for a black candidate. But they were never going to vote for a liberal Democrat of any persuasion anyway.

Everyone knew Obama was an African-American from before the moment he threw his hat in the ring for the Iowa caucuses: Indeed, as a freshman senator aged only 46, with no national experience beyond his four years so far in the Senate and a virtually non-existent record on key votes and legislative accomplishment there, he would not have gotten within a prayer of his party's presidential nomination had the romance of his Kansas-Kenya background not made him a dream candidate first.

Also, Obama was riding consistently high in the polls a couple of months ago, with leads as great as 12 points or more in some polls. His victory over a conservative septuagenarian after eight years of a Republican in the White House with gas prices at a record high, the dollar plummeting and the housing market in chaos seemed assured.

Obama has not veered from his planned message. He has meticulously masterminded every detail of what was supposed to be his imperial progress. The problem is that none of it is working.

When Obama moved to the center on a host of issues to sound reassuring, he sacrificed his reputation for bold, innovative change and for courageous integrity. When he wowed world leaders and public audiences on his foreign trip from Afghanistan to Berlin, he came across at home instead as a celebrity on a Paris Hilton scale. The more the U.S. media gave his grand tour favorable coverage, the more his poll numbers fell.

Even Paris Hilton's famed YouTube video hurt Obama in the end much more than it did McCain, because Hilton, like McCain, spoke coherent, honest and detailed sense on energy issues. She acknowledged the nation's need to maintain and expand offshore oil drilling and other conventional energy resources.

By contrast, the alternative energy resources that Obama advocates are still largely non-existent in terms of technological and engineering capability. When Hilton shows a greater, more confident and far more detailed mastery of one of the three key issues in the entire campaign than the Democratic nominee, he really has problems.

Most of all, Obama and his strategists never anticipated that McCain, with fewer financial resources and a far smaller, more informal staff, would prove energetic, aggressive and effective in his daily counterpunches at the Democratic candidate.

Although McCain is more than a quarter-century older than Obama, he is the one who has been far more intellectual, coherent, energizing and dynamic in the national debate. Obama's favorite means of presentation -- the long, usually vague but inspirational soaring rhetoric of a prepared speech -- was great to rally Democratic Party hard-core activists back in the early days of the campaign, but MTV generation America has no time for it. McCain's punchy messages are making far more impact there.

If Obama loses after everything he had going for him, including the biggest financial war chest in U.S. political history, the venerable liberal establishment of the Democratic Party is likely to be eaten alive by a neo-populist new generation over the next few years. To lose three times in a row -- especially in an election in which every economic indicator pointed to a Democratic landslide -- will make sweeping, unprecedented change and upheaval in the party inevitable.

Worst of all, Obama has been in apparent denial about his collapsing poll numbers when the one thing above all the public craves from its national leader in a time of fear and economic crisis is, as the greatest of Democratic presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, famously said in his first inaugural in April 1933, "action, and action now."

Obama simply must deliver a credible, detailed plan of action to confront the economic and energy issues facing the nation in Denver next week. If he doesn't, his goose is cooked.
 

fff

Well-known member
Don't kid yourself. Right now about 5% of the people in the US will look you in the eye and tell you they'll never vote for a black (or other descriptive term) man for President. They don't care about policies, running mates, experience, education. They're not going to vote for him because of the color of his skin. And they don't care who knows it.

Then you have the sneaky bigots. 4-5% of them won't come out and say it. They'll say he's "arrogant" or "marxist" or "inexperienced" or "muslim", but the real reason will be his color.

Right off the bat, Obama is down maybe 10%. He's got quite a hill to climb. He may not make it, but if he doesn't, don't kid yourself that his loss will be a rejection of Democratic policies. It'll simply be a sad rejection of our Constitution: All men are created equal.

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that's what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.

Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an "elitist" who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn't one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We're just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.

Then there's the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama's white mother always preferred that her "mate" be "a man of color." John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book.

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn't get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain's approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique.

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.

http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/
 

Texan

Well-known member
fff said:
Don't kid yourself. Right now about 5% of the people in the US will look you in the eye and tell you they'll never vote for a black (or other descriptive term) man for President. They don't care about policies, running mates, experience, education. They're not going to vote for him because of the color of his skin. And they don't care who knows it.

Then you have the sneaky bigots. 4-5% of them won't come out and say it. They'll say he's "arrogant" or "marxist" or "inexperienced" or "muslim", but the real reason will be his color.

Right off the bat, Obama is down maybe 10%. He's got quite a hill to climb. He may not make it, but if he doesn't, don't kid yourself that his loss will be a rejection of Democratic policies. It'll simply be a sad rejection of our Constitution: All men are created equal.

Apparently, Obama disagrees with you race-baiters:

"If I lose, it won't be because of race," Obama said. "It will be because ... I made mistakes on the campaign trail, I wasn't communicating effectively my plans in terms of helping them in their everyday lives."

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN27407972

But don't you Dems let that stop you from practicing up on your excuses. :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Don't kid yourself. Right now about 5% of the people in the US will look you in the eye and tell you they'll never vote for a black (or other descriptive term) man for President.

Is that all? 5%?

What about the 95% of blacks that WILL vote for a black ONLY because he's black.

Is that racist? :lol: :lol:
 

Cal

Well-known member
Mike said:
Don't kid yourself. Right now about 5% of the people in the US will look you in the eye and tell you they'll never vote for a black (or other descriptive term) man for President.

Is that all? 5%?

What about the 95% of blacks that WILL vote for a black ONLY because he's black.

Is that racist? :lol: :lol:
Yeah, but Biden might even turn some of those 95% of blacks off. :?
 

VanC

Well-known member
Mike said:
Don't kid yourself. Right now about 5% of the people in the US will look you in the eye and tell you they'll never vote for a black (or other descriptive term) man for President.

Is that all? 5%?

What about the 95% of blacks that WILL vote for a black ONLY because he's black.

Is that racist? :lol: :lol:

Don't forget about the 12.63% of white, hand-wringing, guilt-ridden liberals who will vote for Obama simply because he's black and "it's time we had a black president." They don't care about policies, running mates, experience, or education, either. :roll: And what about the 7.45% that won't vote for Obama because they see how dangerous he would be for the country, but are afraid to say so because their worst fear is being called a, GASP!, racist by some empty-headed, elitist, bullying, intellectually vapid pinhead?

You're right, Mike, millions will vote for Obama because he's black, which means they'll vote against McCain because he's white, which makes them racists. It's been a favorite tactic of the far left for years. It's OK for the left to call Clarence Thomas a "lawn jockey". After all, he's a conservative. It's OK to call Michael Steele an "uncle tom". Shucks, that guys a conservative, too! But if you dare have the slightest little misgiving about "The Annoined One" you're automatically a racist. You criticize ANY black liberal for what they've said or done and you're branded a racist. They see race behind every tree and under every rock. THEY'RE the ones that are inhibiting positive race relations in this country by crying racist! every few seconds, but are too wrapped up in themselves and their self proclaimed superiority to see it. What a bunch of idiots!

And Texan is right when he says the left is practicing their excuses. You'd have to be blind not to see it. The media that's in love with Obama, the hard core lefties, and the Obama campaign all have seen Obama's numbers plummet as people start to pay more attention to him. What could possibly be the reason? Could it be that people see him as the extemist he really is? No. :roll: Could it be that his mantra of "hope and change" are beginning to be seen as nothing more than empty words? No. :roll: Could it be that some of his policy proposals, what little there's been, are seen as impossible to implement or just downright unacceptable? No. :roll: Could it be that people see him as evasive and unable to give a straight answer when asked a tough question? No. :roll: Could it be that without a teleprompter and a prepared text the guy morphs, right before our eyes, from a lofty orator to a blathering idiot? No. :roll: Well, there has to be some reason, right? I've got it!! Everyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist!! Yes, that must be it!! :roll:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: These people don't have the intellectual capacity to debate real issues with a sane, clear, lucid argument. So what do they do when cornered? They trot out racism, sexism, and every other ism they can come up with. They're a bunch of airheads and I'm sick of them. Some people may buy all that crap, but I won't. I know who I am, and what I am, and I'm pretty comforatable with it. You want to call me a racist because I think Obama is a lightweight? Fine. I'll just laugh in your face and immediately place you in that little box in the back of my mind where I put every other fool I've run into and, since I'm such a compassionate person, I'll even feel sorry for you and what you've become. :(
 

don

Well-known member
you have to figure the first black man to be president of the us won't necessarily be a good president. he'll be elected because he can get the black vote and enough of the white vote. this is where the vp nominee is crucial. race has always been an issue down there and if things come together obama will win. he has characteristics that make him electable: intelligent, charismatic (to some) and not objectionable except to the racists. as well, bush has been an absolutely horrible president and mccain is obviously no prize so that works for obama. if you get this 'first black' thing out of the way maybe it will be a step towards, in the future, electing the better man although i'm sure race will always be a consideration. i think this election will be close and the dems could easily lose it if they don't get their act together.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
you have to figure the first black man to be president of the us won't necessarily be a good president. he'll be elected because he can get the black vote and enough of the white vote. this is where the vp nominee is crucial. race has always been an issue down there and if things come together obama will win. he has characteristics that make him electable: intelligent, charismatic (to some) and not objectionable except to the racists. as well, bush has been an absolutely horrible president and mccain is obviously no prize so that works for obama. if you get this 'first black' thing out of the way maybe it will be a step towards, in the future, electing the better man although i'm sure race will always be a consideration. i think this election will be close and the dems could easily lose it if they don't get their act together.

I don't know about that. The first black Supreme Court Justice has turned out to be a good one.

The dems. lost their chance to get their crap together when they nominated Obama - and I don't see how you can call him intelligent.
 

don

Well-known member
the difference would be that justices are appointed, not elected and thomas would probably have had a tough time getting elected.

based on how far obama's gotten in this election i would guess he ain't stupid but then compared to a bank employee in small town nebraska yeah you're right.
 

VanC

Well-known member
Mike said:
If Obama loses after everything he had going for him, including the biggest financial war chest in U.S. political history, the venerable liberal establishment of the Democratic Party is likely to be eaten alive by a neo-populist new generation over the next few years. To lose three times in a row -- especially in an election in which every economic indicator pointed to a Democratic landslide -- will make sweeping, unprecedented change and upheaval in the party inevitable.

One can only hope. It's sad to see what a once great party has become. There will always be exremests in both parties, but when they take over and start dictating public policy, there is trouble ahead.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
the difference would be that justices are appointed, not elected and thomas would probably have had a tough time getting elected.

based on how far obama's gotten in this election i would guess he ain't stupid but then compared to a bank employee in small town nebraska yeah you're right.

Justices have to be approved by Congress. That takes a vote.

Depends on how you measure intelligence. I can give a straight answer on the Second Amendment. I know how capital taxes affect tax receipts. I know the tax cuts helped everybody, not just the upper class. I can give you an answer on abortion without lying. I know there are only 50 states. I know you can't increase spending without increasing taxes. I know we are nowhere near being weaned off of oil. Oboma doesn't know any of that.

I also know that capital letters are part of proper writing.
 

Texan

Well-known member
don said:
he has characteristics that make him electable: intelligent, charismatic (to some) and not objectionable except to the racists.

Am I misunderstanding you, don? It sounds as if you're trying to say that anybody that objects to Obama is a racist. Is that what you meant?
 

don

Well-known member
i meant he doesn't have any outstanding characteristics that anybody should find unacceptable like convictions for sex offenses, wife beating etc. other than his political stance the only difference from some other people is his color and probably the election should be about his ambitions as president, not his color (for both races).
 

Texan

Well-known member
don said:
i meant he doesn't have any outstanding characteristics that anybody should find unacceptable like convictions for sex offenses, wife beating etc. other than his political stance the only difference from some other people is his color and probably the election should be about his ambitions as president, not his color (for both races).

Okay, I just misunderstood you. I agree that it shouldn't be about his color. But the fact remains that he wouldn't be the nominee if not for his color.
 

don

Well-known member
and that's why i made the comments about the first black president maybe not being the best man for the job but being able to get votes because and in spite of his color. this is very interesting to watch from canada but i expect the fight to get really dirty after the conventions. we don't have it any better up here - weak candidates in an election likely to take place before the end of the year.
 

Texan

Well-known member
don said:
this is very interesting to watch from canada but i expect the fight to get really dirty after the conventions.

I think you're right, don. And if Obama loses, I think we can even expect it to get really dirty after the election, too.
 
Top