Obama's Problem: He is a Democrat
Looking over the commentary on the contest between John McCain and Barack Obama at Saddleback, one troubling thing is becoming quite clear. Obama is not only being undermined by weak-minded hacks within his own party. The same strange urge that leads democratic congress-people to criticize Obama in public also seems to underlie the bizarre idea that Obama, in not having unequivocally won an audience he was never going to win, has somehow demonstrated his inability to win the election. This is utter nonsense.
Perhaps Obama is being made a victim of his own incredible potential. It has been a long time since there has been a candidate who broke the mold, who managed to convince most people (even his opponents) that he was a decent person. In fact, it’s been so long that his supposed supporters hold him up to an impossible standard, and begin to crow about the end of the world when he fails to walk on water.
Consider how McCain would have fared with an audience of progressives, and let’s say he was interviewed by Amy Goodman (in an equally lop-sided way). Would McCain emerge victorious? Of course not. More importantly, would his most ardent supporters begin loudly proclaiming his impotence because of this? Consider, if Republicans did so, most people here would be simultaneously shaking their heads and rubbing their hands. It would be a thrilling bit of lunacy, another example of the other camp’s basic insecurity and fragmentation.
Now would be a good time to show a little unity, wouldn’t it?
Perhaps Obama is being made a victim of his own incredible potential. It has been a long time since there has been a candidate who broke the mold, who managed to convince most people (even his opponents) that he was a decent person. In fact, it’s been so long that his supposed supporters hold him up to an impossible standard, and begin to crow about the end of the world when he fails to walk on water.
Consider how McCain would have fared with an audience of progressives, and let’s say he was interviewed by Amy Goodman (in an equally lop-sided way). Would McCain emerge victorious? Of course not. More importantly, would his most ardent supporters begin loudly proclaiming his impotence because of this? Consider, if Republicans did so, most people here would be simultaneously shaking their heads and rubbing their hands. It would be a thrilling bit of lunacy, another example of the other camp’s basic insecurity and fragmentation.
Now would be a good time to show a little unity, wouldn’t it?
Advertisement





The diarist asks for Unity.
How about asking the fringe TPM/Daily Kos crowd to stop hating on Hillary Clinton and focus on John McCain?
August 18, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fringes aren't going to stop hatin' on Hillary until Obama actually gets the nomination...Still a lot of distrust out there.
Then we need to get the unity thing goin'. I know that is one of the dirty words around here, but if we don't get it together and stop writing the GOPs talking points for them, we're gonna lose this election and have no one to blame but ourselves.
August 18, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christ, I'm sick of listening to people carp about Hillary and how she's been treated.
I can't wait until after the convention, when she can be trotted out to hinterlands of Appalachia, and this campaign goes on about its business of winning the election.
You know, I was a loyal Deaniac, who was completely apoplectic about how John Kerry treated my dearly loved candidate, but after Dean lost, I pulled up my boot straps to work for Kerry.
And I hope the Hillbots do the same thing. It's time to unify, forget the past, and work for the future.
August 18, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of the T-Shirt that came out when people lost their minds and were lining up to see that crappy "Titanic" movie for the 5th or 6th time:
"It sank. Get over it."
August 19, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's problem is not that he's a Democrat.
He's problem is that he allowed McCain to define him on McCain's terms, he has no interest in economy and therefore cannot convince voters concerned about economy, he has no effective surrogates, he blew the foreign policy debate, he blew the Iraq debate and then he decided to accept the invitation to pander to evangelicals.
That's all.
August 18, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
You consistently complain about the Obama strategy, about how he's allowed McCain the upper hand, etc.
I'd be interested in hearing what you suggest Obama do, how he would do it, etc.
You are great at pointing out flaws, I've not heard any suggestions for strategy though.
It's easy to say how great McCain is at defining Obama on his terms. Lord knows I've had my own doubts lately.
Fine. What do you suggest as a counterattack? Give an example of an ad, or a thematic strategy, that could put Obama's campaign in a dominating position.
You remind me of that kid who would sit in the back of the class during a planning session for the prom and point out how sucky everyone elses ideas were, but offer none of your own.
August 19, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had a 3 or 4 point plan for Obama outlined in one of the threads yesterday. Look it up if you are really interested.
August 19, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second that one. As a recent example, John Kerry's performance on MTP was abysmal. Please send him to Argentina until after the election.
McCaskill's decent, but everybody else seems to think they're somehow being reasonable and high-minded by tempering their criticism of McCain and support of Obama with criticism of Obama and uncritical acceptance of McCain's "expertise" in foreign policy.
Guess what? Nobody is going to give you credit for self-criticism, least of all the idiot press.
Solution: pick Biden. Sure, he'll say somethin' stupid along the way, but he'll be sure to throw some punches too.
Remember "A noun, a verb, and 9-11?" Good times.
August 19, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He's problem is that he allowed McCain to define him on McCain's terms...he has no effective surrogates..."
Which is something that has happened again and again to...wait for it...democratic candidates.
As for his supposed failure on foreign policy and Iraq, he has not lost that debate and there's no reason for him to do so.
It may be true that, in hind sight at least, it was a mistake to go to Saddleback. On the other hand, it's good of Obama, and part of his stated program, to try to reach out to constituencies which normally would automatically vote against him. I don't think there's anything wrong with him doing this, and I don't think it does (or ought to) hurt his standing with his incredibly nervous and apparently skittish base. Going to Saddleback should (?) only gain him votes.
August 19, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't disagree more. There are enough of hard-hitting "fighting Dems" around who would be great surrogates. But they are not good enough for "progressive" Obama.
The only facts on national security and Iraq I have are the polls where McCain consistently outperforms Obama on both.
The only fact I have on economy is the fact that Democratic Party beats Republicans by a huge margin in general, while Obama only leads McCain by a couple of points (Krugman).
The only fact I have on his base is the Ohio poll that shows he's now losing registered Democrats.
Obama's problem is not that he's a Democrat. Obama's problem is Obama.
August 19, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, and where were these fighting democrats in the last few elections? How is it that the most scurrilous attacks can come out of the Republican ether while McCain can deny it, or laugh it all off? Meanwhile, Corsi's book is on the best-seller list, while equivalent (though hopefully more honest) books about John McCain remain obscure?
Are you getting my drift here? The debate is far from over, Obama is still ahead, and he certainly is on higher ground whether the issue is the economy or national security. We have not even passed the conventions yet. I don't think we've begun to see him fight. I believe we will very soon. Either way, the fantasy baseball school of armchair politics is not helping anyone.
August 19, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the hurdles that Obama faced after getting the nomination was the meme left over from the Clinton battle that he was arrogant, etc. At times I feel frustrated that Obama hasn't been more aggressive, but I think they have been working during this slow time (ie the undecideds are not engaged) softening his image, "humanizing" him (the photos of him and his family on the beach will do more for him than a hard hitting speech).
And yet he is going to toe to toe with McCain in Virginia. So go figure right?
August 19, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here is a question for you: is that problem which is Obama a result a failure of his intellect, morality, or vision, or is it possibly a failure that a politican with a great mind and solid values can't connect because he isn't folksy or something to that effect. Are you pointing your finger at Obama or the voters?
August 19, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously Obama.
Unless you are trying to tell me that it's the voters' job to connect with Obama. Who's running and who's voting?
August 19, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I come from the perspective that the voter has a responsibility to do their civic duty and explore the issues and the candidates. If I, as a voter, just sit back and say, "make me feel good about myself," then I am not a good citizen and letting my community down.
Yes of course a politician needs to do what it take to resonate with the voters. And of course if Obama has been blasted for anything is that he connects with a lot of people. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
August 19, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my point is that if he losing registered Democrats in Ohio, then maybe that aren't really Democrats. I live in Indiana and I know a lot of Democrats that are Democrats simply becuase of tradition and when one talks about issues from domestic to foreign, they just spew out Republican talking points.
August 19, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink