http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302526.html?nav=hcmodule&sub=new
I am curious what you think of this article.
For DesMoines Dem
- Tuesday, Feb 5 2008
- DrinksGreenTea
- 7 Comments
- 0 New!
About the Author(s)
DrinksGreenTea
7 Comments
I think I need to write my diary
in response to the questions I keep getting about why I don’t support Obama.
The author of that piece does a great job of knocking down a straw man. We are all too afraid of Obama’s brilliance and inspirational leadership!
To say that everyone’s refusal to support Obama is grounded in fear is a good way to dismiss people’s viewpoints without addressing them.
I do think he would have trouble beating McCain. You can call me fearful, or you can address my reasons:
McCain, with the help of Lieberman, steals Obama’s claim to reasonable post-partisan leadership. So now we have two candidates appealing to the middle, only one is much more experienced.
Obama has never been vetted, and most Americans have never heard any reason not to vote for him. This is going to change in a hurry if he becomes the nominee.
Obama is great at delivering a set piece, but he is surprisingly not great under unfriendly questioning. I will dig up the youtubes to prove this. So far he hasn’t been asked many tough questions, but that will change if he becomes the nominee.
Obama runs behind Clinton among Latinos, senior citizens, and women, all critical voting blocs for us. Latinos in particular may desert the Democratic Party for McCain if Obama is the nominee, because McCain is the most popular Republican in the Latino community.
Now, the author of the piece you linked to says everyone tells him they would love to see Obama be president, but they’re afraid he can’t get elected, or they’re afraid he would disappoint them.
I could introduce you to plenty of people who would not like to see Obama become president. In fact, if we weren’t having an election at all, and I had the sole power to appoint anyone president, Obama wouldn’t be anywhere on my list. So fears about his electability are not at the center of my resistance to Obama.
I don’t think he’s a strong leader. I don’t agree with his vision about the kind of leadership the country needs. I don’t think he would be a tough enough negotiator with Congress. I think he is too close to the coal industry and would expand nuclear power.
I recognize that millions of people find him inspiring, but I don’t choose a candidate based on who tells me the most times to invest all my hopes and dreams in his candidacy.
If I need help believing in myself, I can buy a self-help book or make an appointment with a therapist. I am not looking for an “inspirer in chief” or anyone who thinks that the president’s main job is to be the inspirer in chief.
desmoinesdem Tue 5 Feb 1:21 PM
watch this hilarious youtube
In a focus group with lots of Obama supporters, no one is able to name a single accomplishment by Obama:
That’s why some of us feel that a lot of the mass support for Obama represents good branding and marketing (along with bandwagon effects).
desmoinesdem Tue 5 Feb 2:24 PM
That video is crap
Some of those people give good answers: community organizer, ethics reform bill…
The others had a microphone shoved in their face and couldn’t come up with anything. I don’t blame them. But, that’s not the real problem.
Hannity, and apparently you as well, sound as if you are looking for these average people to give a response that sounds like it comes from a pundit. I would have given a much stronger response, as would anyone who really knows his resume, because I can rattle of a few accomplishments, however non-traditional, that made a difference. But, the average voter doesn’t know a candidate’s resume, unless he or she is a national figure with many years under his or her belt in D.C. Even then, most voters have little clue of what an accomplishment means if it doesn’t include being a former President, military officer, or governor.
The truth is that most Hillary supporters only know her as the First Lady, not for any accomplishment she made. I guarantee you get much similar responses with just about any other candidate. Can you name some? Obviously, it all depends on what you call an accomplishment and if people are not used to seeing a candidate with an unorthodox resume of accomplishments, then you’re going to get blank faces mixed in with those who actually do research.
I see what your point is, but those voters could have given the same responses about any other candidate, except for probably John McCain. That’s why it pays – politically – to go into the military. In the eyes of the average voter, unless you are an incumbent or have military experience, you are not really all that accomplished anyway. Only one of those accomplishments significantly increases likelihood of getting elected, too.
So, I am not sure what the rap is on Obama’s accomplishments when he has served longer in political office than either Hillary or Edwards and his private life has been more virtuous than both of them. None of them served in the military, none of them have been Governors, CEOs, or Mayors, or anything comparable to what is similar to being President.
So, basically, because Obama has never served in one of these positions and people are unaware of his non-traditional accomplishments, Obama is just branding and marketing. Seems rather cynical about politics.
drinksgreentea Tue 5 Feb 6:03 PM
his private life has been more virtuous?
You mean in the sense that he got a wealthy businessman to pony up $625,000 so that he and his family could move into a house they couldn’t afford to buy on their own?
Even my brother, who voted for Obama today in Arizona, says it was monumentally stupid for Obama to enter into that kind of arrangement.
desmoinesdem Tue 5 Feb 6:54 PM
every candidate has made mistakes
Hillary’s have been more noteworthy.
drinksgreentea Tue 5 Feb 7:55 PM
at least you admit it was a mistake
I am amazed to see how many Obama supporters think the Rezko story is meaningless, even though Obama is trying to make this campaign about who has the best judgment.
If Clinton had bought her house in NY under similar circumstances, the media would have crucified her.
desmoinesdem Tue 5 Feb 9:55 PM
Obama owned up to it
I don’t know the exact details because they were not significant enough to remember, but I can’t think of anything he hasn’t owned up to, whereas Hillary – much like Bush – does not really own up to anything.
Anyway, now we’ll see who has the real appeal, who is real and who is fake, and so forth, as we get into the gnitty gritty of the delegate hunt in the final states. Obama is in a good – not ideal – position. Obviously, Hillary is the front runner, and anyone who ever thought otherwise does not know anything about politics. It is a joke that the Clinton campaign tries to even suggest that they have never been the front-runner.
The California loss is rough, but maybe by the time I wake up the gap will be a little closer. I imagine that is likely.
Most of all, what can be gleaned from yesterday’s primaries is that Obama has national appeal, he can win in red states, and with enough time to campaign, he can be successful in most places.
I think what Hillary proved is that she still has a strong establishment in the Northeast and Latinos like her. It remains to be seen how that plays out in Texas.
After today, I am about ready for this primary to be over. I mean, seriously, I have other things to do.
drinksgreentea Wed 6 Feb 3:11 AM