Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Backing his way in

By Carl

This is likely the last negative column I get to write about Obama, so you'll pardon me if I let it all fly now.

While the
inevitable march of Obombers and their mindless drones has at last reached the conclusion that they seemed in their Hillary-hatin' cups determined to foist upon the Democratic party, we should probably pause a second and reflect on just how damaging their Manichaean quest has been to the party and to the chances of securing the House and Senate further.

This is a party that was only able to wrest Congress away, and that by the slimmest of margins in a culture that was thoroughly disgusted with all things Republican, particularly Bush, by hewing to the right. The people who ran in 2006 ran under the regime of Rahm Emanuel, who at the time was among the most hated Democratic leaders (and probably still is).

The Senate seats won, in particular, were won for the most part by running a close-to-pro-life ticket in states like Montana and Colorado. Hillary Clinton seemed a natural progression to nudge the country slightly to the left in her first term, then more in her re-election campaign.

Clearly, that was not going to sit well with the minority of Democrats who a) hate all things Clinton, and b) can't bear the thought of evolution. For these folks, a jackhammer is sufficient when a scalpel is needed.

There's the overwhelming need, I suppose, to try to establish some power base of about a twenty percent of the country, but at what cost to the nation as a whole? Is this any different than Ralph Nader throwing the 2000 election to George Bush? What is this basically suicidal need to run anyone who is bright and shiny and new, when governing demands someone who knows the ins and outs of governance?

No one is more adamant about the need for change in politics and governance in the country than I am, but I also remember the last time we tried replacing a tired, corrupt administration with a "fresh face" who spoke well, and held a lot of promise, and was even one of the most intelligent men to ever sit in the White House.

Remember him? Jimmy Carter?

His administration did some good things for this country, to be sure, but simply put, he could never live up to the troubles in the world that he found himself in, and I suspect Obama will be the same kind of President, if he makes it past the general election.

And Carter begat Ronald Reagan. Obama could beget, who? Mitt Romney?

Pendulums swing, but they don't miss the midpoints in their swing. It's almost like the bizarro world, non-reality-based liberal wing has decided that they'd wrench the pendulum out of its fulcrum and drag it kicking and screaming to the far left.

Trouble with that is, once you've done that, pendulums tend to swing back as violently and extremely. There's a majority seating on the Supreme Court that is going to vehemently enforce conservative values and ideology and any attempt to alter the political dynamic by uprooting the nation and shoving it leftward is going to run up against that rather large obstacle.

With any luck, the SCOTUS could be lulled into a passive mood, but not if they feel pressure from the right wing to become activist, which is pretty much certain no matter which of these three is President, but more so if Obama wins.

And we must keep in mind that, given at least a half dozen chances to score a knockout blow against Hillary during the primary season, Obama couldn't muster up enough support outside of his narrow-interest base to throw her off stride, while in the later primaries, the ones that should have been coronations of an Obama candidacy, enough anger and rancor remained that she actually gained support amongst her base and chipped away at his base.

This is not the sign of a particularly strong candidate, that his own base begins to desert him at a time when they should be more confident than ever of his leadership.

In backing into the nomination, not a given as I write this, but it seems likely that Hillary will concede tonight, Obama has a two-fold task: one, convince enough of Hillary's supporters that he deserves their support and two, make inroads into traditional Republican and independent bases.

This last, I think, will be the harder sell for Obama. Clearly, the patina of "purity" that Obama had has been washed clean: the Wright and Pfleger videos, his Rezko ties, his elitism towards anyone who's hands get dirty for a living, or who believes in church and God (apparently, something he's now lost), or who owns a gun, and his apparent arrogance.

After all, what other less-than-first-term Senator would dare challenge the establishment for the sake of his own political ambitions?

We have a saying in city politics here: That man is running like he's got something to run from.

As opposed "to run for."

There are many who disagree with me, who say Obama is different, that he will change the political dynamic.

Perhaps they are right.

Perhaps Obama really is who he says he is, and will change the political dynamic and put this country back on course. I will admit the possibility that one man could do that, however unlikely and unprecedented in the history of democracies reaching back to Athens.

And perhaps, not only are they right, but they are right in ways even they aren't aware.

Maybe he's worse than the average politically motivated corrupt politician, a flim flam man.

(Cross-posted to
Simply Left Behind.)

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share


  • Manichean? Are you really saying that Obama's campaign has hewn to the precepts of an ancient Gnostic sect of Christianity?

    And I can't help but laugh when you tell us what is and isn't a sign of a strong candidate while ignoring the surest sign of a weak candidate, and the one exhibited by Clinton: losing.

    By Blogger Fargus..., at 2:29 PM  

  • Manichean? Are you really saying that Obama's campaign has hewn to the precepts of an ancient Gnostic sect of Christianity?

    And I can't help but laugh when you tell us what is and isn't a sign of a strong candidate while ignoring the surest sign of a weak candidate, and the one exhibited by Clinton: losing.

    By Blogger Fargus..., at 2:29 PM  

  • There are plenty of other candidates that could be run, if you feel Obama is not suitable. The overwhelming hatred of anything Clinton by the right would certainly ensure that nothing would get done.

    Hillary is a bright person, but this is not the time for her to run.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:48 PM  

  • Amazing - you had Dodd, Biden, even Richardson - truly experienced people, but just too boring. So, you were left with the lady who would have done nothing if not for her prodigy husband, and the radically left (and oh-so-chic), Mr. Obama. Enjoy President McCain!

    By Blogger QueersOnTheRise, at 3:06 PM  

  • Wow. Where to begin? With the fact that Obama is winning almost exactly as many electoral votes against McCain as Clinton is, and their popular vote spreads are almost identical also? With the fact that the Dems won special elections in deep-red districts while Jeremiah Wright was all over the front pages?

    And are you seriously arguing that Obama is much more left-wing than Clinton, yet a Supreme Court with him as president will be more right-wing, as a result? Hey, then why not just elect Dick Cheney president so we'll have a left-wing Court!

    Look, I see the man's flaws -- I'm no Obamaniac, and I would have voted for Edwards if he had even a chance of winning a delegate in my Super Tuesday state. And, hell, my wife voted for Hillary. But now we both just scream at the TV every time we see her -- not because we love Obama and hate her (we defended her until very, very recently), but because her decision to try to win via right-wing-friendly memes, and to unilaterally postpone the reunification of the party for months when she knew she had an infinitesimal chance of victory, were tremendously destructive to the Democrats.

    In a GOP-hostile year, we could have a Democratic nominee who was only attacked seriously by credibility-challenged pro-war Republicans. Instead, we had a Democrat -- i.e., someone who, this year, has credibility -- making those attacks stick. Now they'll be credible coming from McCain. Thanks a lot, Hill.

    By Blogger Steve M., at 4:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home