Buyer’s Remorse
The fortress built by pundits on the left are starting to crack … from the inside.
In the aftermath of Barack Obama’s overseas trip, the liberal punditocracy has begun to fret. Certainly there is reason for concern. Obama’s poll numbers are within the margin of error in a year in which a generic Democrat would be beating a generic Republican by double digits. And the storylines which dominated the news since the trip have been ones unfavorable to their chosen candidate: his ego, the snub of wounded U.S. soldiers in Germany, a potential flip-flop on offshore drilling and a poorly received attempt to play the race card.
Richard Cohen was one liberal pundit who emerged from the fog of Obama-mania. Cohen threw cold water on the notion that a liberal Senate candidate from Hyde Park showed political courage by opposing the Iraq war, and then recited chapter and verse on the flip-flop orgy:
He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol — a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.
But what really irked Cohen was Obama’s “tissue thin” record and the nagging sense that despite Obama’s attractive packaging Cohen was “still not sure, though, what’s in it.”
Indeed, these concerns (and other concerns by many other pundits including Dana Millbank; read the whole thing) have been raised by Republicans for some time. Yet they were dismissed as being racist, jealous, out of touch, and distracting from the real issues. Some writers chided McCain’s attacks on the media for being in the tank as desperate, but perhaps some have taken it to heart.
By all accounts, Obama should be trouncing McCain. That he isn’t, and that this is surprising to the media, is a bigger indicator of who is really out of touch.
[tags]liberal media,Barack Obama,Jennifer Rubin,Dana Millbank[/tags]
Filed under: Democrats • Doug • Liberal • Media • Politics
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Is Obama in trouble?
Odd. McCain’s campaign and other Obama critics don’t act like it. They invent a hoax about Obama snubbing wounded soldiers in Germany, another hoax about Obama snubbing soldiers in Afghanistan (that prompts an official denial from the Pentagon), they sling mud, badly, inviting a video from Paris Hilton that, as some observers note, has Paris Hilton running intellectual circles around John McCain. McCain’s campaign lets the news slip that they also had an ad ready to go complaining about Obama’s using soldiers as a prop, had Obama been allowed to visit the wounded soldiers in Germany as a senator, proving that McCain’s campaign is based on being able to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time . . .
If McCain’s doing well, why is he acting so much like a sore loser?
McCain’s campaign lets the news slip that they also had an ad ready to go complaining about Obama’s using soldiers as a prop, had Obama been allowed to visit the wounded soldiers in Germany as a senator…
Funny, and sad, if true. You have a source?
Media Matters covers it here. But as A.J. Strata notes, McCain’s biggest blunder was believing initial media reports.
But all beside the point. The answer to Ed’s question, is Obama in trouble, is to simply watch public opinion change over time. It has, negatively. And the media is beginning, now, to see it.
I will say that McCain has been running an awful campaign. He’s better known for putting down Obama that stating his own positions. Pitiful. And yet, the two are still in a dead heat, after Obama’s initial huge lead.
I’m not sure that public opinion has changed significantly over time. It has been a relatively tight race since at least this last January, with the polls going up and down mostly in the 40%s for both candidates…
January 2008:
The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Election 2008 shows Republican frontrunner Senator John McCain with single-digit leads over Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain now leads Clinton 48% to 40%. He leads Barack Obama 47% to 41%.
In July, Rasmussen reported:
Barack Obama’s lead over John McCain has now stretched to five percentage points in Pennsylvania. In April, McCain had a statistically insignificant lead, but the Democratic candidate has been slowly moving ahead since then.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds Obama out front 47% to 42%. When “leaners” are included, Obama leads 51% to 45%. Last month, Obama led 46% to 42% after holding just a two-point lead the month before.
As stated in another post, I think the lack of a much greater lead by Obama can be explained partially by
1. racism (no one would realistically deny that there is not some substantial number – 2%? 10%? – of people out there who flat would not vote for Obama because of his race) – in a tight race, even 2% is a significant number
2. the failure to account adequately for the Young Adult vote and others who are more likely to vote this year that may not have in the past
I think we’ll see when November gets here that Obama will win this fairly handily – racism or not.
1. racism…
Don’t forget to account for the number of people who flat out will vote for Obama because of his race.
They WON’T be voting AGAINST McCain because of his race. Black (or white) folk voting for Obama is not racism (the belief that one race is inherently better than others) and it would be wrong to construe it that way.
Sorry Dan, anyone who votes for Obama simply because he is “black” (albeit half-black) is voting for a racist reason. It cuts both ways.
No, I don’t think so. Words mean things.
racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
No one is voting for Obama because they believe that Obama’s race “is superior and has the right to rule others”
No one is voting for Obama based on discrimination against McCain or whites in general.
No one is voting for Obama based on hatred of whites.
Words mean things. No one is voting for Obama for racist reasons.
[with the caveat that there are always miniscule exceptions to any rule – sure there are probably some small number of folk who are prejudiced against whites and therefore not voting for McCain, but that is a tiny number]
Aside from that, even among those minorities you may have seen quoted on Fox News saying they’re voting for Obama because he’s black, those, too, are a minority. I know of NO ONE who is voting for Obama merely because he is black.
Again, I’m sure that there exists some folk who would say that, but that is a miniscule number.
Dan,
You can try and write off the black voter poll numbers as being in the minority or minuscule, and you can try to tap dance around the definition of racism; but the simple fact remains that black people are rallying around this, as you put it, historic event of having the first candidate of color – the first half-black candidate. The mere fact that it is mentioned (his candidacy being historic because of his color) betrays the notion that his followers are not voting for him because of it.
IMO, the Dems made a big blunder in going with The One. They had two historic avenues to choose from (first half-black or first woman candidate), and they went with the glitz. He stumbles badly when not on tele-prompter, and he has no substance (plus, his wife is a dead-weight anchor).
Between him and Hillary, McCain has a better chance beating him. And, let’s not kid ourselves, if McCain wins, racism will be blamed.
I’m sorry, Rusty, that you disagree with the definition of racism. It is what it is.
And, if McCain wins (and it’s simply not going to happen) by 1-2% of the vote and it is the case that 2% of voters are racist (ie, they have “the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others; hatred of another race”), well, then would that not be by definition the case that McCain won at least partially due to racism?
For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with your assessment that Clinton was the best chance the Dems have for winning. Too many on the Left are disenchanted with her. Obama is going to win because people are excited about voting for him and a change of direction.
Clinton would have lost that momentum and been just another Democratic candidate, albeit a rich white woman this time instead of another rich white man.
If you believe the Democratic propaganda, all those racists would have voted Republican anyway, regardless of the color of the candidates. So no, “by definition”, you can’t blame racism for any Obama loss.
Well, we had some 20% of people – registered Democrats – here in Kentucky say that race was a factor in their voting decisions. I believe it was a similar number in West Virginia.
source
So YES, by definition, it would appear that some racism will be involved. The probably unanswerable question is whether that number is 2% or 20%, but the reality is that there ARE some people who will not vote for an African American for racist reasons.
Are you doubting that or just questioning the numbers?
Ah, you are correct. I recall hearing about that (though I don’t expect to find that information in Democratic propaganda).
Rather than devolve into definitions, I’ll say two things. First; you’re right that some of McCain’s votes — from both sides of the political divide — will be due to racism. The amount is, as you said, really subject to dartboard predictions.
But second; if Obama loses (longshot at this point, I agree), Democrats will blame racist Republicans and throw the dart at a number at the high end of your scale (2-20). Kentucky has long since left the memory and the narrative of Democrats. I feel safe in this prediction because I see the label “racist” far more heavily used and misused on lefty blogs, big and small, including the way Rusty mentioned; simple preference.
Just 3 more months to find out.
Dan,
I don’t disagree with the definition of racism. My issue is that you fail to admit that people who vote for Obama, simply because he is half-black, are not racist. Such actions are made solely on the basis of race and fit squarely within the realm of racism. Now, as to how many or what % of the voters will do so, I have no idea… but I think it at least equals, and probably betters, the 2% white racist number you’re throwing about.
Clinton would have lost that momentum and been just another Democratic candidate, albeit a rich white woman this time instead of another rich white man.
A little hint of racism in that statement, wouldn’t you say? After all, when I cast my vote, I’m looking for the best candidate, not whether the candidate is a rich white woman, a rich white man, or a Messianic half-black man.
The Dems made their bed, with this issue… you can’t utter one word of criticism against The One without being called a racist. For cryin’ out loud, Bill Clinton (the first black president) and Geraldine Ferraro (the first woman VP candidate) have even had to defend themselves against accusations of being racist.
BTW, the issue would have been similar had Hillary been the candidate. Some would not, or would have, voted for her simply because she’s a woman. In both cases, their actions would be because of sexist issues.
Hi Doug! Loved your hosting of SNN, speaking as a devoted listener (of the show, not just you – don’t get big-headed).
I would disagree with Dan as well, by his own definition of racism, the decision to chose to vote for Obama based on his indentified race is a racist decision. The hypothetical “me” in the discussion is chosing to ignore or override all other factors (qualifications, competance, ideology, programmes) to chose the candidate based on the colour of his skin. I’m sorry, but that is racist; it declares that a White, Chinese, Hispanic or Indian candidate is a lesser choice because their skin colour and cultural background is not “black”.
Yes, there are racist voters who will not vote for a black man. But they are equal in numbers to the number of black voters who will not vote for anyone else, in favour of a black man.
On a second note, don’t you think that that clannish, racial based trend of voting is dangerous for democracy? It creates a political clique of “aristocrat” politicians, who favour their “clients” by racial business quotas and pander by claiming that they are discriminated against and then executing symbolic “restitutive” programmes to salve those consciences.
The best strategy for McCain against Obama will be to attack his expediency and unwillingness to confront reality in favour of pandering to required votes, as typified by his Iraq stance. It was not a disaster required an immediate retreat until last month.
Thanks for your comments about my SNN contributions. I was a listener for about a year before being accepted as a contributor, so I don’t have any illusions that people download the podcast just to listen to me. 🙂
As to your point, indeed, identity politics breeds identity pandering, and the racist attitudes it breeds. Rusty’s point about the Dems making this particular bed (including the definition of racism they use) is the result of it.
Hi Rusty – you refer to Obama as “The One,” which is something I’ve read on a number of blogs (all right leaning, I must admit). Where did that phrase originate? Did the dems come up with that? Thanks in advance.
J.
Josef,
I don’t know where the phrase “The One”, in referring to Obama, came from. I think it was in one of McCain’s recent campaign ads. It is parody, btw.
“The One,” as in the movie, The Matrix? In which Keanu is “The One” appointed to save them all?
Come now, fellas, you’re showing your lack of culture…
Well, if you equate The Matrix with “culture”, then yes, I’m lacking.
FWIW, I also didn’t know who Heath Ledger was when his death was announced (much less, Kurt Cobain’s), nor was I entirely certain who Brett Favre was when he bawled on and on about retiring.
Whew, I feel much better. (Though I did know the reference to The Matrix.)
Josef,
You ask where the term “the One” comes from when referring to the Obamessiah. It actually originated from Oprah Winfrey, and Obama supporter. The opposition picked up on it as a way to mock his tendency to present himself in messianic terms.
Thanks for the info, Skip. Can you point me to the Oprah speech?
My interest in this topic stems from the fact that “the one” is a rather generic phrase that is used a lot.
“He’s the one who said this, he’s the one who believes that, he’s the only one who can do this. He’s the one, the only, the heavyweight champion of the world…”
I’d like to figure out who changed “the one” into “The One.” Is it Obama saying that he’s the savior of us all, or is it the opposition trying to make him look bad? Either way, it makes me uncomfortable. Same with other religious-themed putdowns like “Obamessiah” or “McCain and Not So Abel.” Clever? Yes. Appropriate? Nope.