Obama, The Rookie
Democrats have a habit of falling in love with candidates on the first date.
Barack Obama's comments last week - about how alienated working-class voters "cling to guns or religion" - are already famous. But the fact that his aides told the Washington Post that he is privately bewildered that anybody took offense is even more remarkable.
Democrats have been worrying about defending Mr. Obama's highly liberal voting record in a general election. Now they need to fret that he makes too many mistakes, from ignoring the Rev. Wright time bomb until the videotapes blew up in front of him, to his careless condescension towards salt-of-the-earth Democrats. Mr. Obama has a tendency to make such cultural miscues. Speaking to small-town voters in Iowa last year, he asked, "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
Mr. Obama is the closest thing to a rookie candidate on the national stage since Dwight Eisenhower, who was a beloved war leader. Candidates as green as Mr. Obama make first-timer mistakes under the searing scrutiny of a national campaign. Even seasoned pols don't understand how unforgiving that scrutiny can be. Ask John Kerry, who had won five statewide elections before running for president.
For all his winning ways and natural appeal to the camera, Mr. Obama hasn't really been tested in a major campaign. In 2000, then-state Sen. Obama challenged Congressman Bobby Rush, who was vulnerable after having been crushed in a bid to become mayor of Chicago. Mr. Rush, a former Black Panther, painted Mr. Obama as "inauthentic" and beat him 2-1.
In 2004, when Mr. Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, he had the good luck of watching both Blair Hull, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, and Jack Ryan, the GOP nominee, self-destruct in sex scandals. Mr. Obama's eventual Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was an unserious candidate who won the votes of only 56% of Republican voters.
Mr. Obama has prospered in Democratic primaries. But as John Harris and Jim VandeHei note in Politico.com, that's in part because these primaries have "been an exercise in self-censorship" about Mr. Obama's weaknesses. It is "indisputably true," they write, that "Obama is on the brink of the Democratic nomination without having had to confront head-on the evidence about his general election challenges."
There are many. His statements that he wants to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, combined with his lack of foreign policy experience, could hurt him. And his aides are hard pressed to come up with any deviations in a voting record the nonpartisan National Journal calls the most liberal of any U.S. Senator.
As a state legislator he was even more off-center. In 1996, he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Senate approved 85-14 and President Clinton signed into law. He twice voted "present" on a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. In 1999, he was the only state senator to oppose a law that prohibited early prison release for sex offenders.
Mr. Obama also backed a total ban on handguns, a move his campaign now says was the result of a rogue aide filling out a questionnaire. But Mr. Obama's own handwritten notes were found on the questionnaire, calling into question the campaign's version of what happened.
Everyone knows Mrs. Clinton's electoral vulnerabilities -- GOP consultant Mike Murphy jokes that "half of the country thinks she rides a broom." But Mr. Obama has shown weakness with key Democratic constituencies. He's had to fend off concerns about his Middle East policies with Jewish voters; he's also won only a third of Hispanic primary voters.
Then there is trade, where his insincerity is at least as clumsy as Mrs. Clinton's. During the San Francisco episode, Mr. Obama had a throwaway line about how working-class voters fixate on "anti-trade sentiment" in order to vent their frustrations. But isn't it Barack Obama who has been spending months stirring up "anti-trade sentiment?" He has threatened to yank the U.S. out of the North American Free Trade Agreement unless Canada and Mexico renegotiate it. Last week, he denounced the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
According to Canadian diplomats, top Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee admitted to them that they could dismiss his man's anti-NAFTA rhetoric. All of this makes Democrats wonder if Mr. Obama is ready for prime time.
But they have themselves to blame for letting him get this far largely unexamined. While Republicans tend to nominate their best-known candidate from previous nomination battles (Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and now John McCain), Democrats often fall in love during a first date. They are then surprised when all the relatives don't think he's splendid.
Michael Dukakis had a healthy lead in 1988 against the elder Bush at this time and right through the political conventions. Then came the GOP's dissection of his Massachusetts record and his tank ride. Bill Clinton was able to win with only 43% of the vote in 1992, thanks in part to Ross Perot's presence as a spoiler. John Kerry had a six-point lead in the May 2004 Gallup poll over President Bush, then the wind-surfer crashed. All of those candidates had never run for national office before. Democrats paid a price for running a rookie.
Donna Brazile, Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager and an undeclared super delegate, is worried. "With the Wright controversy still lingering and now Obama's unartful comments," she told CNN, "it will paint the picture of Obama as being 'out of sync.'"
With 81% of voters telling pollsters the country is on the "wrong track," no one disputes Democrats can win in November. Still, it should be a matter of concern to them that both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama currently trail John McCain in general-election matchups. Democrats would be wise to have more debates and sharper exchanges in the remaining primaries. It may help minimize the surprises they are likely to encounter this fall.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well written Mr. Fund.
This is the reality. We have to understand that the majority of voters do not possesses the serious mind set displayed on these boards.
Quite the contrary. Just because we feel comfy with the collective wisdom here does not mean translation into a majority dynamic. I have been around long enough to know that...”ro
OC
Now this, ladies and gentleman, is an "elitist" condescending attitude.
So, you think none of us talk to family about these things? Not a single one of my family members go to political blogs, but most of them are fairly representative of what I read here in the comments - in other words, the exact opposite of what Fund and others might have us believe is "really going on" out there in the rest of our country. Isn't it just as likely that this small subset of Americans on political blogs actually reflects the larger constituency in America?
Mr. Miller,
Not since we got trounced supporting McGovern. There was no way in hell that McGovern would or could lose or so we thought. Polls sarcastically indicated we shouldn't even have the General because McGovern will be POTUS to our delight as we told ourselves, naturally. The polls weren’t telling us anything we thought we didn’t already know. It wouldn’t even be a race as 90% of Americans were at that time radically against the Viet Nam War of which effort I was very much a part. 900 whistle stops across this country with everyone screaming George!!!
This is where I learned the reality of politics and it was painful.
McGovern won two states while Tricked Dick Nixon took POTUS in an historical landslide (I just threw up in my mouth a lot) until……..t
I feel I must relate my personal experience when my gyro’s truffle out the same basic characteristics now that I and thousands more experienced at the time.
The last thing I want to see is McCain in office. We have to follow reality, integrity, hard work and not get caught up in the emotion which clouds thinking. I say concentrate on getting our nominee in the strongest possible position for the General.
Just my humble opinion formed by eating and swallowing shattered political crystal.
OC
John Fund,
The likes of you can never cease to amaze me. You folks never bother on what his REAL message was but will be quick to twist and sprinkle you own "truth" and "self-discovery" (however biased that may be).
If there are two sides to an interpretation, ..knowing that Obama way back in 2004 on Charlie Rose program said exactly the SAME message consistently (although with much better words), then why don't you focus on that more enlightening view of his then his current widely and maliciously peddled negative side to that coin?? Why not?
You know why? Because people like you want to see negatives in a sea of positives.
As I have always maintained, you SEE what you WANT to SEE.
*I used "see" figuratively (in case anyone took it literally.
Thanks for reading.
What tough race has McCain been in?
McCain doesn't need to understand anything about the economy,or sunni shia, because he will be controlled by the Military Industrial Complex and the Neo Cons. He will be Bush III and we will have to endure 4 more years of the same...onl
I understand you want Senator Clinton to win, however she isn't. Senator Obama is going to win the nomination and the Presidency.
If those are the best arguments you have to change someone's mind, you'd be better served to get behind Senator Obama and promote him, unless of course you'd prefer President McCain.
You live in la-la land. He might *win* the nomination, but only through fear tactics at this point. Most supers know that he is unelectable by now, but they fear a backlash. I think it could actually go to a second ballot and he might get smoked by a savvy Clinton team. My hope. But really, Obama is done and he really did it to himself. He acts not like any male candidate that I know--he is like a college kid in the big arena, who somehow believes the misguided hype about himself. In his heart, he can't actually believe that he knows more than McCain or Clinton, but he says he does. He is so arrogant and really, in the end, that is going to be his undoing. A punk lawyer from Harvard, that never really worked a hard day in his life. Yeah, right, we are going to elect him???
What fear tactics has he employing? I know I should just attack but I'm really interested to get an answer.
Please respond.
It's time for people who think along these limiting structures of what we can and can't do to move out of the way. We are facing too many threats, and the young generations (I am in my 30s so not so young) live and breathe an awareness of the energy and environmental crisis. We don't care about the rules on how and when to create change. We need it now, and we are coming together, ready to stand together to demand it. When you say Obama, replace it with "the people who voted for Obama." This is not about him, it is about us and our sincere/desparate need for things to get better.
A gold star sister
John -
http://www
Clinton is more of a rookie than Obama is. Yes, she has "stood by her man" as he ran for offices, but she has only been the candidate in two previous campaigns.
2000 Elected to US Senate
-- Guiliani dropped out as her opponent due to health in May 2000. Rick Lazio, weak candidate stepped in.
2006 Reelected to US Senate
-- Jeanine Perro withdrew. Weak candidate John Spencer stepped in.
Whereas Obama has had more campaigning AND elected office experience than Clinton:
Candidate for office:
1996 Elected to Illinois State Senate
1998 Reelection to State Senate
2000 unsuccessful bid for Congress against Bobby Rush
2002 Reelection to State Senate
2004 Elected to US Senate
And when you look at how the two campaigns have been run - you can't truly believe that his campaign has the appearance of a Rookie's when you look at all of the fumbles and turnovers that her team has given up. Please - stop beating that dead horse - we didn't believe 3 months ago, we don't believe it now.
The Republicans always nominate the Toadies. Their candidate has to cow-tow to every corporate welfare scheme, every tax cut for the well-off and be willing to sacrifice a little bit of the Constitution to satisfy this royal class.
I'll take an enlightened Rookie over an ass-kissing Toadie anyday!
I like toadies. They know how it is to traverse through the mud, unlike rookies who are too busy looking for their handlers..
Sounds like you've memorized Hillary's talking points. Good job!
Obama/Wright '08
"With the Wright controversy still lingering and now Obama's unartful comments, it will paint the picture of Obama as being out of sync.'"
Geez, even trying to defend the guy you libs sound like elitist pigs.
His comments weren't "unartful". They were mind-numbingly stupid. Do you think people sit and watch Beavis and Butthead and say "My, what unartful chaps they are!" But of course, they can't use the word 'stupid' and the word 'Obama' in the same sentence because that phony branding is all he's got going for him. As we all know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How many times have you walked into a "Fine Arts" museum to see the utterly pointless crap on display, with elitist snobs all huddled around them like they're one of the Seven Wonders of the World? If you don't appreciate the crap they put on display, then it's not because the artist did something wrong, it's because YOU did something wrong. By calling these statements 'unartful', she's bashing people for being offended. Obviously they're too stupid or too unrefined to appreciate the artfulness of Obama's offerings.
People still watch Beavis and Butthead? What year is it in Mormonworld?
You must have no memory, like a 1998 computer.
Funny. Remember JFKs 'Ask not what you can do........
Mormondude, "unartful" is a good way to describe it,because it means that while he could have said it better,what he said IS TRUE.Which it is. If you can't get a good job,watch businesses dry up in your town,pay $3.50 a gallon for gas,watch the food prices rise,and read about the billions going out the door to Iraq,you're going to pull out the Good Book to keep from actually going for the Glock. I'm surprised more folks haven't turned to guns,if only to get Bush out of office.
WTF are you talking about with the art museum? Sounds personal..
Don't get all mad because Romney fizzled out like a pissed-on Fourth of July sparkler.
I'm just a lowly cog in the great machine John, stuck in the middle of the unwashed masses. Many of us seek your enlightenment, guidance..
We know what we like at times, and we know sometimes what we like or want is wrong for us.
It's soooooooo confusing, having to vote for various candidates we don't like, so we can please the wise and enlightened like yourself, but we endeavor to overcome. It would be SO much easier if we didn't have to vote at all, if we could just leave it to those who, not unlike yourself, are more eminently qualified than us to decide what is best to make the universe unfold as it should, no, as it MUST.
However, please explain the mechanism with which we extract ourselves from this foolish peril that the illusion of free will has place us. How should we undue this "elective process" nonsense. One candidate, so obviously unqualified because of his massive unconventional fundraising success, and popular "appeal" has somehow managed to mount a defacto insurmountable lead, in reality in ALL categories traditionally used in previous illusory nomination processes. What are we to do, because of course you and Hillary08 and others are GUARANTEEING A HILLARY VICTORY in November right?
And since you are GUARANTEEING victory for Hillary, but victory for Obama would be 50% or less in probability (or are you guaranteeing a McCain victory if Obama is the nominee?), what are we to do to overturn this?
True, Obama may be eviscerated in the general election. However, he is the closest thing to hope that we silly, wide-eyed, naive liberals have. If Bush can shit on the Constitution for 8 years, and then pull a Putin by anointing his successor, we never had a chance to begin with. Clinton is a decent person, as far as I know, but Obama offers us a chance to speak truthfully about the problems our really sweet experiment in democracy is faced with.
Vote Obama
See above
What's wrong with a liberal voting record? He's a Democrat!
This argument would be a lot more credible if the exact same stuff didn't happen when we nominated Al Gore. The Republicans have a slime machine, and will find a way to slime anybody. Anybody want to bet that if Hillary gets nominated, they won't find brand new slime to throw at her? It doesn't have to be true, it just has to stick.
Democrats have to stop thinking like abused spouses. Behaving better won't keep us from getting beaten up. We just have to stand up to it and beat back.
The Repubs will bring up all of Hillary's past scandals and all of Bill current and past business dealings..
No, the real question that no one is talking about is will white America vote for Obama? Now we know young folks will, but is the rest of white America ready to vote for him. I say no and it totally disgusts me.
When are we going to have that "talk" on race?
Maybe it's because he's a rookie not because he's black. But, some people will never 'get it' as Michelle likes to say. The whole article was about him being a rookie.
brabc1---You are simply a racist. I notice that when Obama flubs up, the liberal race baiters make it all about race. Well, people are tired of this BS now and it holds no value for arguing his own boneheaded mistakes. Boneheaded is probably being nice. He is a jerk and people don't like jerks.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
