Skip to comments.The Problems with Obama [Victor Davis Hanson]
Posted on 02/15/2008 1:23:35 PM PST by Uncledave
The Problems with Obama [Victor Davis Hanson]
Under pressure to produce some facts and specifics, the Obama team is beginning to release a little on the economy, taxes, and new entitlements. But the problem is that Obama himself seems not familiar with the details, and still prefers talking only about hope and change. Wonks releasing details doesn't solve the problem. And it won't, until he, the candidate, can talk in serious fashion ex tempore about the specifics he wants to achieve.
The other problem could well be racial. His coalition initially was based on the notion that he would capture 60 percent of the black vote in a tough competition against the wife of our first honorific black president, and go on from there to cobble together a coalition with other minorities and elite whites. But his success seems to have been achieved with a slightly different calculus 80-90 percent of the African-American vote, elite yuppie whites, and students and Moveon.org progressives.
The problem with that is illustrated by Hillary's last-ditch appeal to win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania with working-class whites and Hispanics. Since the agendas and past voting records of Obama and Clinton are nearly identical, and since he is the far more inspirational candidate, she hopes to tap into a growing resentment that his appeal is boutique for whites, and based on racial solidarity among African-Americans; the former turns off the working classes and the latter other minorities as well as poor whites. I think squaring that circle is every bit as problematic as McCain pacifying the conservative base. And the Democrats would worry about a candidate coming into the convention and beyond that lost the popular primary vote in the key November states of California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.
With Hillary, Obama looks youthful and invigorating. But beside the scarred old veteran McCain, he will appear inexperienced and wet behind the ears. Putin's comment that Hillary didn't have a head reminds us that the problems in the world are not, pace Obama, due to misunderstanding or miscommunication, but because thugs like Ahmadinejihad, the Chinese apparatchiks, Assad, Putin, Chavez, etc. profoundly dislike the impediments the United States poses to their respective carnivorous agendas. McCain gets it, the others don't (cf. his Putin KGB quip compared to Hillary's 'duh' redundant remark that Putin didn't have a soul.)
These creepy leaders are more like beady-eyed wolves that wish to break into the global hen-house and prey on the European, African, Asian, and Latin American chickens inside and so pace back and forth, eyeing the trigger finger of the farmer with the shotgun at the door. They know exactly what they want, and how to get it, and can't wait for the guardian to sit down, discuss their hunger, and invite inside them for discussions and some lunch.
02/15 02:44 PM
Obama would probably be a disaster as President; I’m still not voting for McCain.
Staged Incident - Obama speaking - woman near the front roll faints, Obama throws to someone next to her a water bottle and says some comments comments about his concern for her. Sounds nice - but this has happened at at least 4 speaking engagement including here in Seattle.
Google: woman faints at obama rally or Obama water bottle.
I agreed with most of the article until I read, “McCain gets it, the others don’t.” I couldn’t disagree more. None of them get it. For me, this election will come down to voting against one of the candidates, rather than voting for one of them.
bump & a ping
I am not a mccain supporter and frankly do not see any of the three candidates as being good for the country....
CNN staging plants from the Hillary campaign.
Hussien’s people using phony fainters, making women swoon.
Bogus debates by YouTube and the MSM.
They know they can get away with it, and we can’t stop them.
Then you are voting for Obama.
No, I am voting third party.
So are we.
KV (adult son) says he would NEVER vote (D).
We still have our primary vote coming in May and will vote (R).
I know some here suggest voting (D) in the primary to help Clinton.
I can’t explain why but I am not comfortable changing tickets to help the lesser of the two horrible choices.
“Putin’s comment that Hillary didn’t have a head...”
Hmm, wow I find myself agreeing with Putin.
I wouldn’t vote for Obama for dog catcher, well maybe, but for President, no friggin way! Holding my nose with McCain.
Some freepers would disagree with this statement. But Hanson is a decent journalist/analyst.
Still, McCain is the least bad of the three, and if he is running against Clinton, he has a greater chance (though that depends on how long Obama can run on charisma and not get into the details and specifics of how he intends to bring about change).
Probably for the entire election. Kerry did that last time. “I have plans, and I’ll tell you what they are after I’m elected.” Look how close he came to winning.
kjo doesn't have a state listed on kjo's FRhomepage, but personally a Californian. All Californians' votes will probably be for the Democratic candidate, and the electoral votes will be for that candidate. So personally have the freedom to vote for candidates who almost definitely will not win. Global2010, being an Oregonian, guessing that the same applies.
Stinks if you live in a 'swing' state. Then you actually could affect the outcome of who is the next President. And of the three, you probably should vote McCain. (general election; not primaries/caucuses/conventions/etc.).
“...this election will come down to voting against one of the candidates, rather than voting for one of them.
I’m afraid that’s going to be true of a lot of us.
That Marxist won't hunt.
Jim Jones did things like this.
A co-worker whose insight into politcs I tend to trust, believes the only way McCain can pull off a win in the general election is if he picks the right VP candidate - and he thinks that it has to be be Lieberman. I agree that this choice would bring in a lot of Dems and Inds, I am hoping for JC Watts as VP.
And when you can’t afford a new car, do you look for at least the best used car you can afford or do you walk?
Basically, if you had to choose one of them to be President, which would you pick? McCain or Clinton/Obama? Hopefully, you'd pick the top candidate (based on your views) of a trashy lot.
That is exactly the point I am trying to make. If you can’t get what you want you need to move down the heirarchy to the next best option.
“Hope and change” - ??...to defend this nation, our families, ourselves against an fanatic enemy intent on killing us all no matter how long it takes?????
Obama needs a video of the Twin Towers behind him when Obama mews this, with never-to-be-forgotten men and women dropping from dizzying hights in horrible sequence after sequence to concrete below....
“Hope and change:” A CHARGE AGAINST OUR OWN SOCIETY AS THE ENEMY SEEKS TO DESTROY IT....
Go to hell, Obama. Go to hell, Clinton. With you - either of you - we only LOSE hope.
Barrack Obamas team should begin to worry that in the popular culture and even the mainstream media, people are beginning automatically to associate his set speech with vapidity, hope and change with saying nothing. If not curtailed, that Pavlovian identification will take on a life of its own.
Historians will wonder at what point the post-racialist Obama, who, it was alleged, was not black enough, transmogrified into The Black Candidate and began winning 85-95% of the black vote, even when head-to-head with the wife of the honorary black president. The downside, as Hillarys campaign seems to be trying to exploit, is that racial identity politics married with appeals to upscale yuppie whites, is beginning to turn off other minorities such as Asians and Hispanics, as well as working whites. One lives and dies with appeals to the tribe, whether intended or not. A good example was Cruz Bustamantes run for governor during the California Gray Davis recall. Suddenly commercials ran with crowds of Mexican-Americans shouting and waving red flags, and his ratings nosedived with each spot that aired.
Obama may well capture the nomination, but there is an outside chance that he will lose to Hillary all the key states so important in the general electionsCalifornia, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Not a good sign for the November elections.
Much of the rhetoric of the Obama campaign concerns mortgage and student loans, with the clear implication that the borrower has been victimized, and is need of federal redress. Two observations: prior to the mortgage meltdown, the rhetoric had been home ownership or the notion that the non-traditional borrower had to be accommodated to get him into a first home. Now such marginal borrowers apparently were tricked, or coerced into buying more home than they could afford.
The same logic will apply to student loans, as we begin to hear all sorts of bail-out programs aimed at those burdened. Perhaps true, but in a great many of cases, many had no business going into debt for college, since they were not yet motivated and only limped through the undergraduate years, attending class haphazardly in a holding pattern, unsure whether to graduate or work or sort of both.
It may be a conservative canard, but the common theme of the Obama rhetoric is that the US is a depressingly oppressive place, where the poor citizen has not much income and gets no help from an uncaring government. It all sounds like 1929, not the entitlement colossus of 2008.
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Like choosing between two forms of a deadly disease.
Look at what you are saying...seriously...you don't even know McCain's running mate plus you'll choose disaster just to stick to your principals. Props to you for having principals,(as do I) but I'll be damned if I let this socialist muslim kook with the middle name of Hussein disgrace the same office x42 got his BJ's in...
kjo my post above should be a reply to you and not uncledave...my bad.
Then you effectively voted for Obama.
This is true. Unfortunately, it is coming down to "who is least-worst for the country?" At least one of the three remaining candidates will defend this country against foreign enemies and is not a foaming at the mouth rabid socialist. It is sad, but he's the one we must vote for.
We have fought our battles over our Republican candidate, we got no traction with the conservatives. Thats it, I lost that battle, but the war against Liberals and even worse, this "Oprafied Candidacy" goes on. I WILL be voting for McCain in the general election. I will have to hold my nose, yes, but I will do it.
Freepers are DREAMING if they think that they are going to teach the Republicans a lesson, and that history will repeat itself and the NEXT Republican will be the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, and he will win because the Democrat will neccessarily be disasterous... that all will not matter, because by then, Obama and the Liberal congress will stack the courts, they will enact HARD socialist policies that would make FDR blush. They will be able to do this because the ELECTORATE is different than it was 25 years ago.
The voting electorate is at a weak point and primed for Socialism, and as we all know, once the government giveth, you will NEVER take it away later. Income tax? Social Security? Medicare? Folks, if Obama makes it to the White House, we will see Liberalism run amok for the next 4 to 8 years in a way that we cannot imagine. The things that THEY feared WE would do over the last 8 years (but never really did), THEY will do to us.
I’m not a fan of McCain, in fact I’m a bit frightened by his presidency (should he win) but I will vote for him if the choice is McCain vs Hillary or Obama as it seems likely. I’d even give McCain some money. VDH is right. McCain for all his faults understands our place in the world. Its not the ideal situation but of the three I am compelled to vote for the most trustworthy given all circumstances. Its not about 1 or 2 issues but the whole gamut of issues and potential calamities that may befall us in the future.
McCain has at least made some very obvious mistakes in the past, and those may even betray his true self. But better to have a President who has made some mistakes so that he may have learned from them, then to have one of the two inexperienced leaders making mistakes for the first time.
Marxists have 2 candidates they can happily support. Why is is there no electable conservative candidate? Is it, perhaps, because the Republican party is not the home of conservative politics?
The radical left has political power that the conservative right is lacking. The pursuasion and direction of leftist politics in America is clear and strong. They are not lacking for standard bearers. The same cannot be said for conservatism.
The problem with that is illustrated by Hillary’s last-ditch appeal to win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania with working-class whites and Hispanics. Since the agendas and past voting records of Obama and Clinton are nearly identical, and since he is the far more inspirational candidate, she hopes to tap into a growing resentment that his appeal is boutique for whites, and based on racial solidarity among African-Americans; the former turns off the working classes and the latter other minorities as well as poor whites.
LOL. The Clintons are playing the race card in a last ditch effort to pull the nomination away from Obama. This whole thing is completely laughable. That being said, don’t count out the Clintons just yet.
You are right. That said, the far left cannot win in a general election. In fact, the Democrats have only won the White House when they run a Southern Democrat, or 2, on the ticket since 1960. That is why, imho, Obama is being compared to JFK - the last non-southern Democrat to win the White House.
Both parties suffer from ‘big tentism’. Our system does not allow for a system like the UK or Germany, where 3 and sometimes 4 parties are in play. Ironically, it should or at least could change - if the parties would dissolve and instead the states’ representatives voted solely in the interest of their state - as was envisioned by the framers.
In order of how bad they would be for the US Obama is number 1.