The Tide Turns
In his recent comments defending Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital, Bill Clinton has given Democrats the green light to abandon Obama. Clinton fuzzed up his remarks by saying that he expects Obama to win reelection, but that is no more than the usual Clinton rhetorical device of saying two things while knowing that only one is taken seriously by the target audience–all in order to maintain plausible deniability if the President asks him, “What are you doing to me?” Further evidence of the Clinton shift was previously revealed in Ed Klein’s claim that back in 2011 Clinton had urged Hillary to run in the 2012 primaries against Obama. This report included Hillary’s supposed reply, “What about loyalty?” to again provide her cover. Given that reports that the Clinton doner network has been nurtured all this time leads one to believe that Hillary or a committed Clintonite will be running in 2016.
The upshot for Democrats is that they no longer must maintain the fiction that Obama will somehow begin fulfilling the promise of 2008 or that his reelection machine will begin functioning. Democrat pollsters will now discover that the race is suddenly not so close after all. Commentators will be talking about 2016 and how the strategy for 2012 must be to limit the carnage. We’ll likely hear things like the Democrats must learn something from the Tea Party, renew their commitment (to a just, sustainable society, etc.), and revitalize their organizations–especially after union defeats. With the fading of the Chicago machine, it will be an opportunity for the Clintons to find work for their operatives and refill the coffers.
For an outline of the Clinton policy to come, we already have the Simpson-Bowles “bipartisan solution” to the fiscal crisis. Note that Bowles is one of those confirmed Clintonites (former Chief of Staff to President Bill) who has, according to rumor, refused an Obama offer to replace Geithner as Treasury Secretary. The “solution” has passed muster in the capital and commentariat and merely requires a presidential champion to hoist it as his (or her) banner. Obama has conveniently ignored it.
On the purely political side, for 2012 and 2014, we can envisage the Clintons endorsing and fund raising for a series of grateful state and federal candidates. The contrast with Obama’s toxic endorsements will be refreshing to rank and file Democrats and the political favors bank will be flush with IOUs. Another benefit will be the contrast with Obama’s corruption: by comparison, the Clintons will look like reliable, trustworthy people after the Solyndras of the world pass the scene. “Ahh,” the Clintons must be thinking, “if we were but twenty years younger, what a fine summer it would be…”
Obama v. Britain
Many have noted Obama’s shabby treatment of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the British establishment in general. Returning the Churchill bust, offering the ridiculous DVD gift, and now failure to return the PM’s phone calls are consistent with a dated anti-imperialist world view. As a community organizer Obama seemed to think that America was trapped in 1963. The man seems a good generation behind the times even as he projects a vaporous future.
But why pick on the Brits? Aren’t there plenty of other European ex-empires to throw stones at? Yet not a word about the French, Spanish or Dutch. The answer may be Obama’s Kenyan daddy, who was anti-colonialist and therefore anti-British during that empire’s twilight in 1950s East Africa. If dad had been from Congo, Barack might be giving the Belgians a hard time. Like father like son, it’s personal.
Getting Out of the Water Dry
The latest Democrat scandal, the Blago affair, threatens to taint Saint Barack for the media. We are told to withhold judgment because there is no evidence that Obama had any contact with the loathsome Illinois Governor regarding the Senate seat sale.
However, it is clear that Obama was able to receive as well as deliver the goods while state and US Senator: $800K to ACORN, $200K raise for his wife, house he couldn’t afford without Rezko, dispensing millions hand in hand with Ayers.
Anyone who can do this is corrupt with a trace of doubt: crooks do not cut you in on the action if you are honest. And an honest man obviously does not take part. He turns in the creeps. It only remains to be seen whether in this case also Obama will, as the Russians say, “get out of the water dry.”
Obama the Vase
Obama’s race, novelty, and media cover (including endless favorable polls) have maintained the illusion that he is the overwhelming choice of the electorate. Meantime, all the news about him over the last several months has been negative. And each new story or fact amounts to a small whack against the vase that is the Obama candidacy. Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, “My (half) brother’s keeper”, ACORN, “Above my pay grade”, “Punished with a baby”, Biden’s gaffes, “I just want to spread the wealth”, attacks on Joe the Plumber, aunt living in a slum–the list lengthens daily.
The sole question is whether the Obama Vase shatters from these blows before or after Election Day. If before, Obama loses and his career is over; if after, his aggressive administration, aided by the salivating Democrat congress, will ensure no action is taken, at least in the short term.
Ayers and Alinsky, Theory and Practice
Obama has dumped his pastor, dissed his grandmother, ignored the material want of his extended family, and his wife has trashed her country. But the Obama’s have not dumped William Ayers, the Weather Underground terrorist, nor have they given up the tactics of Saul Alinsky, the original Community Organizer.
Ayers long ago decided, after having narrowly avoided prison for terrorist bombings, that education is the new revolution. He is in famous company, given the number of dictators and revolutionaries who have focused on indoctrination of the youth as the easiest means of consolidating their future power.
As for Alinsky, Obama has clearly adopted his ground game tactics on the grand scale. It is now revealed that his primary wins over Hillary Clinton in caucus states were assisted, if not made possible, by bussed-in Chicago ACORN workers exploiting the weak residency & identification requirements of those states. The same manpower is being used in Ohio with the connivance of corrupt state officials.
As for the Fannie/Freddie disaster, again the policy of spreading the wealth (Ayers’ socialism/communism) was executed with the help of the (Alinsky approved) ACORN ground game, including the harassment of bankers at their homes.
Meantime, critics of Obama, such as Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber, are threatened by dirt diggers working for the candidate of light. Again the ground game, using large numbers of activists.
The consistency is striking: at the beginning of his career, Obama succeeded in removing his opponents in the State Senate race, including his erstwhile mentor, by invalidating the signatures on their applications of candidacy. Obama’s innovation is to always game the system, and do it better than anyone else ever has.
Peculiar Timing
The latest media dustup concerns reporter Gwen Ifill (NewsHour, Washington Week), who has written a book scheduled for release on Inauguration Day 2009. Her book apparently covers Obama (favorably, could it be otherwise?) as part of a new wave of black politicians.
Normally, political books are released during the campaign, not after. So Ifill and her publisher are not very concerned with sales figures. What would they be interested in? Anybody ready for Press Secretary Ifill?
Obama’s Oversight
During the primaries, Obama clutched his opponents tightly, not allowing daylight to appear between them on matters of policy. Being more desirable from the leftist point of view than the white man Edwards or the white woman Hillary, Obama’s race carried the day. Or almost carried it. The primary voters were not completely sold, especially during the later contests. However, Obama was lured into continuing to focus on his delegate lead instead of consolidating the entire party.
He followed up consistently by not reaching out to Clinton’s supporters following his victory. Instead he made it clear that he did not need to do so, both rhetorically and in his VP pick. His strategy was to make a standard Democrat appeal to the hungry mouths at the table by assuring all that the feast was indeed on its way. The remaining unconvinced voters were expected to strike their Hillary banner and join Team Obama. This form of consolidation failed to compact the base.
Given cover by the always-in-the-game Clinton’s, many Democrats remained doubtful of Obama, waiting for him to explain his policies, waiting for him to woo the women’s vote. Obama’s VP pick neither addressed the women nor developed the hope & change mantra. As the general election has progressed, the cracks in Obama’s Democrat foundation have turned into a sinkhole. Everybody is giving advice and criticizing his decisions–even creating polls purporting to show that since the Democrat(!) voters are racists, all is lost.
Obama has clumsily attacked Palin, further alienating many women voters. A sounder plan would ignore Palin as too dangerous to handle and concentrate on women that he will appoint to the Cabinet, keeping the tone upbeat and future oriented. In this respect, McCain’s spokeswoman Carly Fiorina has amplified his pro-woman image and increased the sense that the Republican administration will have breadth and depth.
Revealing the Candidates
Pundits often say that a candidate needs to introduce himself to the public. Usually this means that the message isn’t working and it’s time to try another. Nevertheless, the gradual introduction of a candidate’s backstory to the voter maintains interest throughout the campaign.
Obama has done this in part with the attractive display of his family, including a set of grandparents, during the convention. His athleticism, in basketball if not bowling, also accentuates his vigor and common touch.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the backstory over time has been negative, from toxic Reverends Wright & Pfleger, “typical white” grandmother, a smoking habit, his radical though oddly undefined mother, a poverty-stricken Kenyan half-brother, the dismayingly angry wife, terrorist associate William Ayers, and real estate assisting crook Tony Rezko.
Some of this bad news could have been better handled. Using Reverend Wright as an opportunity to admit to his own ambivalence and past mistakes regarding race, Obama could have reassured many that he would not be simply the new and improved black candidate. His transformation might have become an example for the campaign, something definitely new and promising, a real conversation about race. Instead he feigned ignorance and gave an already forgotten speech, the standard response of the old politics.
Reaching out to his extended family would have shown humility and a good heart. Even recognizing his smoking habit could have been turned positively into a small but real struggle recognized and applauded by many. Obama apparently regards these topics as off limits.
Without positive testimonials about his background, without showing us what he has learned from his experiences, Obama has had to rely on static labels that have grown stale over the campaign. The effect is increasingly a crisis of confidence which accentuates his thin resume and lack of paper trail in positions that usually produce one. Without a satisfyingly fleshed out candidate, the hope and change voter looks in vain for accomplishments and specific programs.
By contrast, McCain has managed to explain his POW experience, family history (including adoptions), and health problems with more emotional depth and realism. This avoids the risk of the maverick being seen as mere troublemaker. By admitting error, such as his rule-breaking at the naval academy, the corruption surrounding the Keating scandal and his failed first marriage, McCain has defused much that could have hurt him. The net effect is the image of an imperfect but strong man who moves beyond errors and is right enough of the time to earn trust.
Paglia’s Advice for Obama
Camille Paglia advises Obama to be boring so as to make him seem a solid, masculine (!) choice. The problem with this advice is that Obama already is boring. His delivery, full of “uhs,” drawn out “ands,” and miscues, is at odds with his supposed skill in oratory.
Folksy mannerisms might be appropriate when the speaker is an elitist who is talking down to an unsophisticated audience–is this who Obama thinks he’s talking to?–but the technique soon turns tedious. Other than Bill Clinton’s use of this approach, which was often taken by the audience as we’re-all-in-on-the-joke, I can’t remember it being effective.
Add to this Obama’s facial expressions and head scratching and you have a candidate who is feeling the pressure.
