Can Obama Really Win This Thing?

George W. Bush's legacy is clear. Come January, when the 44th president of the United States takes office, the nation will be racked by, among other things, a record half-trillion dollar budget deficit; an economy teetering on, if not in, recession; $4+/gallon gas prices; the lowest consumer confidence in 15 years; a failing, deadly war; and a resurgent terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan. Americans are broke, both in pocketbook and spirit. Over 85% of voters now think the country is headed in the wrong direction. No matter how you slice it, this should be a landslide year for Democrats. By any stretch, Sen. Barack Obama, the party's presumptive nominee, should be ahead by 15-20 points in the polls. Why then, in the latest USA Today tracking poll, is he trailing Sen. John McCain, the GOP's presumptive nominee, by four points among likely voters... a poll in which he led by five points last month? Is this a chilling foreshadowing of things to come in November?

Has the Obama campaign plateaued? Is it stuck in the mud? Out of steam? Despite the media frenzy and campaign euphoria over his much-heralded overseas trip to Europe and the Middle East last week, the polls show no bounce. In fact, as the USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll above indicates, Obama's numbers are dropping. Even more troubling for the campaign are numbers released in last week's Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. On the questions of who has more knowledge and experience, who's better equipped to be commander-in-chief, and who's the riskier choice, McCain leads by a whopping 20%-30%. And in most polls, voters say McCain is the more truthful, trustworthy candidate. Last week's trip was designed to make Obama look presidential. But as the numbers above indicate, it's going to take a lot more than a brilliantly choreographed series of photo-ops with foreign heads-of-state to convince voters that he has the chops to actually be president.

The simple truth is, John McCain is very much in this race, and depending how you look at it, he can and very well might win despite every logical reason that should point to his defeat. So what's happened? Is it merely race? That Americans are just not yet ready for a black president? For a black first family? To be sure, Obama's skin-color has and will continue to pose a major problem for him come November. The harsh reality is, America is still very much a racist country. But the overwhelming support Obama receives from blacks and young people could very well offset losses from the nation's bigots.

But how much can we blame the candidate himself for? Has he truly run an effective campaign, one that has reached out to, and whose message has resonated with, constituencies beyond blacks, the youth, the affluent and educated "Starbucks" whites? Last January, Obama came roaring out of the gate like a Triple-Crowned thoroughbred, but as the primary season wore on it became clear that, once the novelty and mystique of his historic candidacy wore off, that he could not finish off his main rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, with whom he bitterly fought to the end. That he would not capture enough delegates to win the nomination without the last-minute help from the party's elite super-delegates. Along the way there were several critical controversies including Rev. Wright, Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers, "BitterGate" and several patriotism-related gaffes by him and his wife Michelle that all served as a major distraction from the campaign.

That Obama's campaign seems flat is of no surprise to many. Of concern is the belief that with Obama there's lots of style but little real substance. His recent spate of position-changes smacks more of political expediency than the genuine convictions of the "agent of change" to whom millions have heretofore passionately thrown their support. He's disappointed many, and while they'll still surely vote for him, some of that luster, and lust, has faded. The honeymoon is over. They realize their marriage to Obama might just be like every other political union, and that's depressing given all the hope surrounding his early campaign promises.

What's been most disappointing to his supporters is that, while he gives awesome speeches, he may be proving to be little if anything more than the typical double-talking, flip-flopping, opportunistic politician as everyone else. Unfortunately, the bar has been raised much higher for him, and by him in particular. His entire campaign has been built with him being the candidate who'll transcend typical dirty politics. That he's above the fray. Running a new kind of campaign, with a new kind of message of hope and change. And that's what millions were drawn to. They were not drawn to a typical triangulating panderer who now seems to do or say whatever it takes, to whomever, to get elected even if it means supporting centrist policies that are counter to those of his supporters.

His recent flip-flopping and/or support of several hot-button issues -- wiretapping/telecoms, Iraq, campaign finance, gun control, death penalty, religious-based incentives -- is quite disingnuous. That he has just three years national experience doesn't help either. Nor does his boneheaded relationships with Wright, Ayers, Rezko etc., all of which show really poor judgement, and serve to give his detractors and the Sean Hannity's of the world ginormous fodder from which to attack. You'd be kidding yourself if you believe that these missteps have not had a tremendous negative impact on the independents; those still on the fence. Those voters whom he so desperately needs.

I don't quote Hannity often, but I will today: "We just don't know who this guy really is." Correction, we do: he's a really junior Senator, with no major policy accomplishments, who wants to be America's first black president. In a year where the election should be a fucking landslide for a Democratic candidate, it's incredible, and beyond frustrating, just how close the race truly is at this point. More and more indicators point to the ugly truth that America's racist dumbasses might very well rather have a curmudgeonly-old-forgetful-highly-experienced-grandfatherly-war-hero-white-guy-they-can-identify-with than a young, inexperienced black man with a Muslim name who they hear hangs out with angry black preachers, radical 60's terrorists and real-estate crooks. While many Democrats, this writer included, would still take Obama in a nano-second over McCain for many reasons, don't kid yourself that the rest of the country's gonna follow suit.

Comments

[ebanks84]

No. Absolutely not. Impossible. Insane to think so. Poisonous. Incurable disease of a person.

NO NO NO NO NO NO..............etc. etc. etc.

[MrWinky]

Final comment, promise.

Obama has disappointed on FISA, his position on Iraq remains the same. The only difference choosing to go back and look at what he said on Iraq or if you just want to quote Sean Hannity.

Obama isn't going to be chocolate Jesus, but name a cleaner campaign than Obama? He has faced some withering attacks by both Clinton and McCain. While Obama's wife has been attacked, he has refrained from pointing out the sins of Cindy McCain, which I applaud. He has had his integrity, patriotism, citizenship, loyalty and manhood questioned, all magpied by the press. He has shown considerable patience and restraint. He attacks, but by and large it is on the issues. How could you possibly compare his campaign to McCain's or Clinton's?

Some in America are unsure about Obama. Understandable, he is the newest candidate on the scene. Some are just unsure if they can vote for a black guy and have black people living in the White House. Some are pissed about Hillary losing, etc., etc. There are a lot of reasons why the polls have remained where they are, but two thoughts on this:

One, polls are polls and if they're that accurate, we wouldn't have elections. It's the middle of summer and we haven't had either convention;

Two, Obama feeling the heat for LEADING these polls and McCain not for losing them? If the press ever stops carping on Obama and carrying McCain, he will drop like a rock.

[MrWinky]

Further, Ostroy appears to have already made up his mind, as he describes the relationships with Rezko, Ayers and Wright as "boneheaded," thus adopting only the rhetoric of the esteemed group of either his political opponents, or Fox News. Quite a group, Andy.

Where is the fairness. Rezko at the time was a leader in the business community. Many politicians were connected to him at some point. How was Obama to know that he was dirty? Why is Obama being held to a standard that others aren't? Clinton/McCain both had similar donors/patrons, and I have yet to hear boo about any of them. McCain was actually reprimanded by Congress for his relation with Keating, and unlike Obama, he should have known something was amiss. Wright was the minister of church which did considerable outreach, Ayers was also prominent in the community and only hosted one fundraiser at his house and served on the same charity board. Yeah, they're absolute blood brothers.

All of these reflect the sins of others, not Obama. Why do Clinton/McCain get a pass on their own personal sins, as well as those of others, while Obama has to answer for everyone he has ever been within 100 yards of?

[MrWinky]

This post is beyond garbage. It isn't wrong in that McCain can win this thing, b/c he certainly can, but b/c it adopts/panders to the worst things said about Obama, which perpetuates the stagnancy of the polls.

Obama has not run an error-free campaign, but it is being run very well. Whether it's his newness or race is hard to tell, but most of his problems have been manufactured. He didn't have a "Tuzla" moment like Clinton, nor moments of incompetence like McCain. If he had, he would be out of this race.

The main problem is that by and large the American public does not follow the minutia of campaigning. The do not penalize McCain for the comment on Afghanistan and Iraq sharing a border b/c most didn't know whether they did or not. Most only know the buzz words about McCain, such as "war hero" and "maverick."

The failure is not that Americans are inherently dumb, actually, quite to the contrary. Rather they're served by a press which continues to draw on very general information and themes that they use again and again regardless of accuracy. A group that you, Mr. Ostroy, now find yourself as a member.

Obama has two books, both of which have been heralded as extremely candid, and a long primary where he was examined thoroughly by both the press and his opponent. If you don't know him by now, it is because you are actively avoiding it.

[ThePeacemakers]

McCain - highly experienced?
One of the most absent senators around?
And we can do without the Keating experience.
And a good number of the policies he's backed - he's turned his back on.

[KingFive]

The doom and gloom of this article is ridiculous. Again the infamous (and may I add debunked) Gallop/USA Today is used to tear down the Obama campaign. Obama is running a spectacular campaign and is doing very well in the state by state matchups. Dems need unity and strength. We need to cut out the "Chicken Little" the sky is falling routine. Once again, the Gallop/USA Today poll has been discredited (the likely voter standard used was flawed to say the least).

[bokiluis]

We're going to lose this election in November now that the McCaiNOT campaign has adopted the Bush/Rovian blueprint to the White House.

The Obama campaign seems ill-equipped to deal with the on slaught of attacks.

I supported Obama in the primary, but, I must say Hillary Clinton would have been a more agressive fighter!!!

[nomobull]

her aggression is why she lost

[FLA1]

It is interesting that some come up with this inexperience tag, when Obama has more national experience than the last two presidents of the United States. He has a good amount of state experience. Certainly, you can better assess how Obama might make decisions on the national scene from his previous votes, moreso, than you could the two presidents before him, yet some people claim that he is inexperienced. The writer suggests that Obama changing position is due to inexperience. Why is John McCain changing position? Obama is moving to the center in some issues to shore up his base. John McCain is pandering to the right, to shore up his base. That has nothing to do with inexperience. The reason the polls are probably so close, is because it is July, and the election is not until November, 2008. A huge number of undecideds. Also, this is going to be an opportunity for Obama to expand his base through voter registration. That is the advantage of having a more energized base-- people are a lot more willing to register to vote for you.

[Gma11]

Wow!! What a hit job on HuffPost.

I disagree with much of what you say.

In particular, I disagree with your concept of change. Obama has NEVER been talking about horizontal change, change from red to blue. He has CONSISTENTLY talked about horizontal change, literally transformation.

But as long as you remain stuck in what Ken Wilber calls the "mean green meme," you'll never get it. . .

[ashenthorn]

You misunderstand the composition of the electorate. No democratic candidate is going to win anything by 15 or 20 points, even if Bush's approval rating falls to 5% and the wrong track poll goes up to 99%. The polarization of the electorate is complete - and it's a process that has taken place over the last 20 years - initiated by folks like Limbaugh and Rove and now joined enthusiastically by bloggers on the left. It's the demonization and dehumanizing of people along partisan lines. Half the country views democrats as not just wrong on policy, but the earthly embodiment of evil - traitorous, immoral America-haters who want only to steal the hard-earned money out of your pockets and use it to fund gay pride parades. The other half view republicans not just wrong on policy, but as racist, corporatist, war mongering scum, who only want to steal the money out of your pockets and use it to buy Dick Cheney and friends another yacht. Under these conditions, a five percent popular vote win constitutes a "landslide" and Obama is doing just fine.

[S1m0n]

The six to eight points by which Barack Obama has consistently been leading John McCain doesn't constitute a close election. In recent years the winner has been determined by a relatively narrow band of swing voters in the middle, a band that consists of more than ten but less than twenty percent of the electorate. If Obama is up by six, then the swing voters are breaking his way by a margin somewhere between 8:2 (a ten percent swing) or 13:7 (twenty percent).

These are blowout numbers in comparison with recent election results.

[Freesia2]

Well, one thing that will help is when the media starts doing it's job, stops plays Smither's to McCain's Mr. Burns, and starts pointing out the gaffes and lies perpetrated by McCain and the RNC on almost a daily basis.

The second will be when the PUMA's and assorted mewing mob stop acting as though the primary season never ended. You realize articles like this are like catnip to them, Mr. Ostroy.

The third will be when people start reading polls acurately. For instance, in most polls they do not figure in the Barr and Nader factor. Obama's numbers are probably more in a 10-12 percent lead, double what's usually projected. The media once again keeps a narrative going because they like a horserace. And they'll trot this old nag around the track as long as it will inspire someone to type out another doomsday projection. How exciting.

The 4th will be when he picks his running mate.

We're in the summer lulls. Have a cool drink and chill and stop helping McCain by reiterating every tired old MSM talking point.

And yes - he really can win this thing. In spite of his own party.

[4thAnonymous]

If Hillary Clinton was nominated instead of Obama she would be having the exact same problem. Replace every instance of the word "Black" with the word "Female" in Andy Ostroy's rant.

[kristycu]

I agree

[XME]

Yes, he can win...but it ain't gonna be no cake walk!

It's a very SAD fact, but in a year where a Republican should have no chance of winning the White House, it will be very close, and Obama will be very lucky to win...and you can be sure that if he were a white man, that would NOT be the case.

[speeddeeps]

that is the sad truth

[londongal]

Wow! I'm dumbstruck by your post, Mr. Ostroy. Flip-flopper, panderer, disingenuous, you say?

Would you like Obama to lay out all of his policies, just like McSame has NOT?

Do you really think the average voter elects a president because of familiarity with intricate details of said candidates policies?

He's made it through this political minefield thus far -- that's an accomplishment in itself.

I consider myself to be an Independent. I don't agree with everything Obama, but I believe in his ability to CHANGE -- to compromise, to consult with advisors, to make wise decisions and not just for pandering's sake. He's a breath of fresh air.