The Political Fall Of Barack Obama

Like many historic political figures, Barack Obama’s greatest moment occurred right before his inevitable decline.  Two weeks ago, Sen. Obama made history by being the first African American Presidential nominee of a major political party.  Before a packed stadium, and on an elaborate stage styled by Greek Mythology, Sen. Obama told Americans that anything is possible in this great country, that we as a people can do anything, and that he was living proof of this truth.

I’m proud to live in a country where something like this can happen.  All Americans should be proud.  In the words of Gov. Mike Huckabee, “Party or politics aside, we celebrate this milestone because it elevates us as a country.“  Gov. Huckabee was right to commend Sen. Obama for his accomplishment.

However, the next morning an even greater accomplishment of sen. Obama’s became apparent when his opponent, Sen. John McCain, chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee.   With all the attention and adulation directed elsewhere, it became apparent that Sen. Obama had rooted and grown his amazing campaign on two very shallow things, personality and media coverage.  Never before in a campaign had the difference between adulation and achievement been so great, and never before had thousands of democrats hit themselves in the head so hard at the same time.

In the few weeks that have followed, it has become glaringly obvious that the Democratic Party chose the wrong person to be their presidential nominee.  They could have had the popular, pragmatic liberalism of Hillary Clinton, but instead they got an inexperienced U.S Senator who is barely halfway through his first term of office.

Adding to the Democratic problem was the selection of Joe Biden as the party’s VP nominee.  Initially, Sen. Biden appeared to be the working class balance to Obama’s Ivy league appeal, however, the Democrats really got someone who reminds most people of a used car salesman with amnesia.

Political gravity is inevitable. What goes up, must come down.  However, if Sen. Obama’s ship could rise for a year, than maybe John McCain and Sarah Palin can stay on top for seven weeks.

Who Is The Best Choice For The "Reagan" Democrats?

Yesterday, much to the disappointment of the “MoveOn.org” branch of the Democratic Party, Sen. Barack Obama finally gave in to Fox News by agreeing to an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. The interview wasn’t anything special, but Sen. Obama’s “giving in” to the evil partisan network is a great example of how the remaining Democratic primaries seems to be boiling down to how well the candidates can court moderate, blue collar, Democratic voters, also known as “Reagan” democrats.

Sen. Obama has had some major success appealing to these voters, but he now is in a current danger of alienating, or losing them completely. Sen. Obama started his presidential campaign trying to appear as the “post partisan” candidate in the race. His rhetoric of national unity was inspiring, and he originally appeared to me as more of a sensible problem solver than a liberal. I remember on one occasion, a little over a year ago, when Sen. Obama attributed many problems of the welfare state to the absence of fathers in urban areas. He also seemed to have somewhat of a commitment to the War on Terror, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His greatest strength with “Reagan” democrats was, as with all other voters, his personality and his inspiring oratory, but when that was peeled away, his appeal to moderate voters really fell away.

Obama’s fall from grace among moderates obviously began with the Jeremiah Wright incident, but his revealing as an extremist doesn’t end there. Recently, It has been recognized that Sen. Obama accepted campaign donations from Bill Ayers, the leader of a domestic terrorist organization in the 1960’s. I would also point to the company that has endorsed Sen. Obama, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Bill Bradley etc. Those guys don’t exactly appeal to moderates. When you’re a liberal, it just isn’t believable when you pretend to be anything other than a liberal.

Sen. Clinton is in good standing with “Reagan” democrats just on account of her last name. Bill Clinton won in 1992 because he was able to convince moderates that he was a “new kind of democrat”. His positions on free trade, and welfare made him a hero among centrist democrats. The Defense Of Marriage Act in 1996 further showed that he could appeal to conservative democrats.

Hillary, however, is a lot more liberal than Bill was. Her voting record may be slightly more conservative than Obama’s, but there really isn’t much of a difference in their positions. Hillary is a modern socialist, and she can’t do much to hide that. She may get some blue collar votes, but she doesn’t resonate with moderates nearly as well as “Good Ol’ Bill” did.

I know I seem to be siding with John McCain on everything these days, but even those who don’t like McCain will agree with me on this. Besides the fact that Sen. McCain is officially a Republican, he is the quintessential “Reagan” democrat. If any group of voters are meant for McCain, then conservative democrats are. (Joe Lieberman anyone?) The now overused “maverick” image should appeal to these voters. Everything that Republican hardliners hate about McCain, should be the same reasons why moderates love him. Campaign finance reform, the way he demonizes private companies, blah blah blah. “Reagan” democrats should like these things about him, even if I don’t.

Posted in Hillary, McCain, Obama | 1 Comment »