Nervous About Obama
Posted by: Jubal | 01/03/2008 9:35 PM
I turned on Fox News tonight to watch the Iowa caucus action. It was illuminating to watch the post-caucus speeches by the various candidates tonight. Being so focused on Red County and running my consultancy, I haven't spent a lot of time watching the candidates in action and come at it with a relatively fresh perspective.First up was former John Edwards. Boy, I had no idea what a terrible place America was until I heard the former North Carolina senator speak, or that "corporate greed" was the cause of everything including tooth decay. I half expected Edwards to promise to "make every man a king." Gosh, I can't wait for Edwards to become President so the government can give me everything I want for free. Republicans should be so lucky to have Edwards win the Democratic nomination and win 40% of the vote with his out-dated Huey Long platform.
Hillary Clinton was just plain uninspiring. She's the kind of candidate who makes you check your watch 30 seconds after she starts speechifying. I'm more convinced than ever she's the Bob Dole of the Democratic Party. I can see how how a Democratic activist could get excited about the idea of electing America's first woman president, and then have Hillary open her mouth and suck out that excitement down to the very marrow of your bones. OK, I understand a third place finish is a lousy context for a rousing campaign speech, but Hillary's speech wasn't so much about us as it was about her and how much she has done and how this was her life's work.
Contrast that with the speeches of the two winners, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee. The word "me" hardly crept into their speeches. They talked like winners -- like leaders -- about coming together and moving forward. Yes, Edwards also talked about "leaving America better than we found it," but that's only after he's done vilifying and vowing to crush the rich and "corporate greed." I think the last guy to win the presidency talking like that was Franklin Roosevelt.
I heard GOP pollster Frank Luntz speak almost a year ago at a Lincoln Club of Orange County luncheon. Luntz told this gathering of GOP partisans that Obama's political liberalism notwithstanding, his personal magnetism and generosity of message were such that if Obama spoke to this same room of GOP partisans, he'd have 90% of us wanting to vote for him by the time he was finished.
This was the first time I watched and listened to an entire Obama speech, and I knew exactly what Luntz meant. Edwards made me alternately groan and laugh out loud, while Hillary made me feel tired -- but Obama was actually compelling.
I used to think Obama would be the weakest nominee of the three. Now I think he'd be the strongest. I know that's a lot to base on a single speech, but that speech told me Obama told me a lot about the kind of nominee he'd be. Edwards, Clinton and Obama are all liberals, while most Americans are either moderates of conservatives. But in my opinion Obama is the only one of them with the presence and way of talking about America to nullify the disadvantage of being slapped with the liberal label.
I'll unhesitatingly vote for anyone of the GOP candidates over Barack Obama. His policies would be harmful to the American foundation of liberty, limited government and self-governance. Yet, as I watched him deliver his speech, I found myself thinking his candidacy said a lot about what great county we live in that a black man with a really odd name could very well be our next President. "Only in America," I thought.
To put it another way: listening Edwards and Hillary made me fearful of what their administrations would do to America; listening to Obama led me to think about what a great country America is.
If Obama kindled that reaction in me, I'm nervous about the effect he can have the vast sea of voters who are not only less partisan than me, but equally dissatisfied with the national GOP.
CATEGORY:
Making of the President
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Great comments, Jubal; I largely agree with you.
Unfortunately, votes generally go to the most charismatic candidate. The candidate's policies run a distant second.
I'm curious, though:
I'll unhesitatingly vote for anyone of the GOP candidates over Barack Obama. His policies would be harmful to the American foundation of liberty, limited government and self-governance.
Please explain to me how the policies of Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, or McCain wouldn't be "harmful to the American foundation of liberty, limited government and self-governance." All of them want to continue and expand on Bush's welfare-warfare-surveillance state, including the further restriction of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Where is the liberty, limited government and self-governance in that?
Jubal: your fealty to the GOP is the same kind of thinking that got Rocco elected. Let's just hope for this country's sake that America doesn't feel the same way.
Obama and Clinton are hardly liberals. Perhaps from a Southern Orange County perspective, they might be described that way, but most Americans (and few Democrats) see them that way. Both are DLC Democrats.
It's also interesting that you chose to describe Obama as a "black man" when he is also white. In fact, he was raised by a white woman and white grandparents. Obviously, race matters to folks like you and I suspect many other voters. That's telling for Mr. Obama.
Gustavo:
I'm a conservative. I'm a Republican. Clinton and Obama are liberals and Democrats. Even the worst of the GOP candidates is closer to my political philosophy than either Clinton or Obama -- hence I'll vote Republican.
As for your Rocco analogy, that is just plain stupid. As if the choice for president will be between either Clinton or Obama, and a GOP nominee about whom no-one knows anything.
It's also interesting that you chose to describe Obama as a "black man" when he is also white. In fact, he was raised by a white woman and white grandparents. Obviously, race matters to folks like you and I suspect many other voters.
Are you going to bill me for the sidewalk psychoanalysis, Dr. Freud? Or is this a free consultation?
Back in the bad old days of segregation and it's attendant legal codes, Obama would have been considered black. In that context, I think it is some statement about how for America has come since then that our next president may very well be a black man. Furthermore, it is a great thing that he is not a race hustler candidate like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. As far as I can tell, he is not pointing to his skin color as his identity.
While I think the fact that a black man -- or a mulatto, if you insist I employ more precise racial taxonomy, Herr Gus -- is a leading contender for president, I don't see him in terms of his skin color.
But I defer to the anonymous Gus to tell me what I'm obsessed about race. I'll be sure to relay your diagnosis of racial obsession to my Mexican immigrant wife and in-laws.
Jubal, you did a great job articulating an observation I have struggled with - recognizing Obama's strengths (and the potential threat to the GOP) without sounding as if you are giving him an endorsement. Your points are valid and well captured.
Let's see, you don't see Obama in terms of skin color but you felt compelled to describe him as a "black man". What's more, you tried to justify that description by referring to this country's segregation. That's a bit disingenuous.
And, the fact that you married a Mexican immigrant is of no consequence. I'm shocked you didn't say: "Herr Gus, some of my best friends are Mexican."
With people like you out there (and there are many, many, many more), I think Mr. Obama will have a tough time becoming our next president.
The Rocco analogy is not stupid. Let's say a strong independent conservative emerged--do you still vote GOP or go with your principles? You'd probably vote GOP just based on your seemingly primary identification as a Republican--at least that's the gist I get from your post. That same "anyone but a liberal" Groupthink is what got Rocco elected--if I remember correctly, you even said you'd vote for him over some OUSD union-backed person!
Gus:
If Obama wins the White House, I look forward to you taking the entire media to task for describing him as America's first black president.
As for your "disingenuous" crack, I was using historical context. Sorry if that offends you.
You accuse me of being a racist, but it's of no consequence to you that I married someone who isn't white.
With people like you commenting here, Gus, we'll never lack for laugh material.
Earth to Jubal: Some Mexicans consider themselves white or Caucasian. LULAC made this very argument for decades so that Mexicans could be accepted. So, you may very while have married a white woman even though you chose to label her differnetly. You may want to check with her on that.
I'll always have material for you color blind folks that identify people by color.
Hey Gus, you better contact the NYT. Here is what they wrote today:
"Mr. Obama’s victory in this overwhelmingly white state was a powerful answer to the question of whether America was prepared to vote for a black person for president."
The NYT has not claimed it doesn't see the color of his skin and then refer to his blackness. Jubal does.
Let's say a strong independent conservative emerged--do you still vote GOP or go with your principles?
OK, Gustavo. Let's play the hypothetical game. If a "strong independent conservative" somehow emerged from nowhere and more closely matched my beliefs than did the GOP nominee, I might very well vote for that person.
You'd probably vote GOP just based on your seemingly primary identification as a Republican--at least that's the gist I get from your post.
To clarify, my primary identification is as a conservative, not a Republican. You might be surprised to know I do not reflexively vote for the GOP nominee. For example, I didn't vote for Pete Wilson in either of his gubernatorial campaigns.
As for Rocco: given that the 7-member OUSD Board is run by a 5-member majority that follows the direction of staff - yeah, I'd take Rocco over a 6th rubber stamp if that were my only choice.
Jubal:
Give it up. This Gus idiot isn't interested in a rational discussion. Just nit-picking one-upmanship. He's not even logical.
In other words, a liberal.
Article posted on the Rolling Stone web page last night:
1/4/08, 2:30 am EST
Iowa By the Numbers
“A black man did this. In a state that’s 96 percent white. This is truly a historic night in America”.-- Tim Dickinson
The point is not what percentage black. The point is that at least the American heartland may be getting over race obstacles nearly 150 years after the Civil War. But the foregoing posts remind me that we may still be bound up in tribal thinking – much like Kenya.
So, you may very while have married a white woman even though you chose to label her differnetly. You may want to check with her on that.
You truly are an idiot, Gus. I'll tell my wife to disregard her Mayan ancestry and inform her some anonymous Internet cheeseball said she's really white because it better conforms to his prejudices.