Obama Stock Is Overpriced; Sell, Sell

Sell Obamas now. They are overpriced and the forward market has gone crazy. If he becomes president in two days, the bubble will burst, I guess in the spring of next year.

From the moment four years ago when I first heard of Barack Obama and read his youthful memoir, I sensed a president in the making. Like the young Nelson Mandela in South Africa, he seemed to hold the aura of incipient national leadership. His range of sympathies, his oratory, his intelligence, his energy marked him out from the run. His embodiment of the American dream was astonishing.

Today the outside world, much of it with a direct and painful interest in American policy, wants Obama to win, by leads of 20 to 60 per cent. These people have no vote. But the narrower electorate of the United States appears also to want Obama to win, albeit by a smaller margin. The world prefers him chiefly because he is black, the latter chiefly because he is not Republican.

Neither reason is robust. To most non-Americans, black is still code for being apart from the American establishment. Any visitor these days to Europe, to Africa or to the muslim world is shocked by the depth of antipathy to America. It is beyond ideology, a visceral, often racial aversion, unrelated to any personal attachment to individual Americans or their much-envied way of life. The ugly American is reborn.

Yet the same visitor is impressed by how often he is assured that an Obama presidency would "change everything". The reason is not that Obama is anti-war or pro-Palestinian or left or right wing. It is that his origins render him the one thing he most vociferously denies, not an ordinary American.

To this world, Obama is a supposed representative of an oppressed class, however much his speech, manner and career bespeak the opposite. He is black and his name is confirmation enough. He symbolises the end of the wasp ascendancy. The reason why his candidacy still discomforts many Americans is the reason the world craves it, that Obama is somehow unreal. He is a meta-American. It is why there will be an awful unleashing of grief and fury if he is not elected.

Yet Obama is real, not just a human being but a politician. In office he knows he must do more than make fine speeches and castigate the government of the day. He must grapple with the wreckage of a world economy whose collapse is in large part due to the mismanagement of American finance, from which as a senator he cannot altogether escape blame.

He must restore credit to markets and confidence to commerce. He must bring health and welfare to a country whose poor will seem ever more "third world" as unemployment bites in the coming months. To millions of Americans he will seem as a messiah. There are millions whom he can only disappoint.

Abroad, this leader would have to end not one war but two, and bring sanity to an American diplomacy that is chaotic in an arc of instability from eastern Europe to the Himalayas. The anticipation that he will be a harbinger of peace, friendship and economic salvation is probably greater than for any American since Roosevelt. The burden of expectation is awesome and unrealistic.

The qualities of charisma and rhetoric that Obama brings to this task might be a match for it. His declared policies are not. His desire to disengage from Iraq is not appreciably different from that of the Bush administration and the Iraqi government. On the other hand, his clearly expressed wish to beef up the war in Afghanistan is reckless.

Obama has approved the bombing of targets inside Pakistan (and presumably now Syria) and proposed invasion to "secure" that country's nuclear arsenal. He has backtracked on compromise with Iran and done nothing to suggest an end to the macho provocation of Russia.

At home Obama would appear from his statements and voting records to be a conventional Democrat, essentially tax, spend and protect with tariffs. While some of this is America's business, the world economy needs a protectionist America like a bullet in the head. American markets open to world goods are vital for recovery, as is America's active participation in the easing of world trade. Obama has shown no sign of accepting this.

On all these fronts there is a more alarming prospect. It is that a Democratic president, even with an overwhelmingly Democratic congress, must beware of seeming soft or dovish or "appeasing terror". Such is politics that the more liberal the man the more illiberal he can feel compelled to behave, as was the case with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Obama has yet to indicate a retreat from the patriot acts or the language of George Bush's war on terror.

Any modern leader parrots the language of change. Obama proclaims himself the embodiment of a revolution in American public life. Yet his record is anything but radical. He even supports the right to bear arms. Were it not for his colour, he would be a candidate running on a conventional Democratic ticket, with few policies more constructive than those of his opponent, John McCain, on how America might now escape from its many predicaments.

None of this is an argument for not voting for Obama. In present-day Washington even modest competence might seem revolutionary. But democratic leadership is like Icarus. Its wings melt as soon as it flies close to the sun. Obama is flying close indeed.

The instant message that an Obama victory would flash round the world is not in doubt. It would transform and refresh America's image, exhilarating its friends everywhere. It would restore to that country the reins of global leadership so missing in the era of Republican xenophobia. It would be an utterly good thing.

The next message could be very different. The skills that Obama has brought to his campaign are essentially personal and organisational, not the superhuman ones that will be required of any occupant of the White House in the immediate future. The higher the anticipation, the more crippling will be the effort needed to meet it, and the greater the fall if it is not met.

The prospect of a failed Obama presidency sometime in 2009/10, whether by his doing or those of circumstance, is heartbreaking to contemplate. It would more than undo the gains secured by his election and devastate the cause he is seen as representing. The least his supporters can do is not raise the bar of expectation too high.

Comments

[KoolBreez]

I bought Obama stock early in 2004.. It is not going to go below my purchace price...

[honeydiva]

wait a minute...h­e's not even a citizen? please.

[honeydiva]

ha... i guess huffpost is doing their rendition of fair and balanced.

[SOLERSO68]

Events have proven, and will prove,This is not a normal election, and people really do want "change", and not a move to the right or the stalemate of the middle. the right at least got THAT one thing right. we WERE sick of cancelling each other out. Where jenkins is wrong is that he assumes no real change will be attempted, not that it will fail. in that hes dead wrong. we are waaaaayy past that now. all of our solutions might not work all at once, but they WILL be tried this time, and "the people" will not have it any other way.

[freshnotbitter]

I disagree with most of the above and I don't disagree with Jenkins very often.

The worst thing we could do is not raise the bar high enough. And it is very likely that will be the exact downfall of Obama. For the democratic remnants of the Clinton administration are not appropriate to the occasion of the first 100 days of an Obama administration and there are many of them trolling around. They will be focused on exactly the wrong thing. E.g., they see the Israel/Palestinian question as a bilateral issue and the result is just more stalemate and quagmire in which the seeds of hatred sprout and drop bad fruit on the rest of the world. They want European type socialist cap and trade / Kyoto solutions to pollution which will enshrine pollution in the mixed (and corruptible) capitalist­/socialist system when what we really need is International Standards via enforceable conventions which apply the best technology in the most utilitarian way. Nor do the old Clintonians have a new millenium solution to health care, the 800 pound gorilla in the room that everybody is ignoring. GM would go into bankrupty shortly if their union enforces just the health benefits agreement they signed recently for retired union members. The largest corporation in the world - used to be - brought down by the great REpublican "free market" health care system which they say is the best in the world. Best? What is so great about bankruptcy?

[Jazzcomedian]

Nothing beats a failure but a try. The problems and issues facing America are immense. If Senator Obama wins the election, at least I will know that there is someone in the White House with great intelligence, a committment to humanity and excellence, and the confidence and demonstrated ability to assemble a smart, innovative team try to grapple with them. That's all I ask.

[hypnotoad72]

Joe Biden, like John McCain, in 1997, voted FOR the balanced budget amendment.

Reid, Wellstone, Kerry, Lieberman, Feingold, Feinstein, Byrd, Boxer, and others did not.

I wonder what was hidden in that amendment that convinced them to vote "NAY".

[alicetilden]

Me too. I felt there were a lot of sour grapes in this article. Obama will be attacked like this by many, but there are many of us to defend and support him. I am behind him for the long haul.

[DBtv]

That One is a man that has inspired The People to rise against the few of the elite who would enslave us in another feudalistic tyranny.

We will not let The New American Renaissance fail by the co-option of our inspired vision.

WE ARE CHANGE.

[martinchill]

"Simon Jenkins writes for the London Sunday Times and was previously editor of The Times. After ten years as its twice-weekly columnist he is shortly to join the new Guardian in the same capacity, combining it with his Sunday Times column. He has written and broadcast extensively about politics and his second love, architecture. He wrote histories of the Portuguese revolution, the British press, the Falklands war and is currently writing a political biography of Margaret Thatcher and Thatcherism. His two recent compendiums, England's Thousand Best Churches and England's Thousand Best Houses are published in America by Viking."

~~

this post is what's known as "an opinion piece".

[pshelleyg]

"The world prefers him chiefly because he is black, the latter chiefly because he is not Republican­."

What a sweeping statement. How do you know why "the world prefers" him?

[TAIsabel]

One of the most conservative publications, "The Economist" (staunch Bush supporter until Iraq went sour) conducted a worlwide poll whereby 86% of respondents supported Obama. Look it up.

[sdskelton03]

The author is correct. Obama faces a very serious problem the day he takes office. It's the same problem faced by Bill Clinton.

Remember, Bill Clinton campaigned as a moderate, then governed as a far left progressive. The people revolted and ended a forty year democratic reign in congress.

If Obama chooses to govern as a far left progressive, the very same thing might happen to him. (Although a democratic political animal president and a ideologically consevative congress seemed to work well before.) If he instead chooses to govern more from the center, the left wing blogosphere will have a fit.

[OhDear]

"Remember, Bill Clinton campaigned as a moderate, then governed as a far left progressive. The people revolted and ended a forty year democratic reign in congress."

Uh, gee -- not even close.

[radicalcentrist44]

Clinton a far left progressive? After "don't ask, don't tell" Clinton raised the defense budget every year, passed the crime bill and welfare reform. Those were all great programs, but not even near slight left of moderate. Clinton cleverly highjacked the crime bill and welfare reform from the republican congress. Clinton is a southern democrat, which means a northeast republican.

[sdskelton03]

What part do you disagree with?

[radicalcentrist44]

Michael Moore said Clinton was a great republican president.

[SOLERSO68]

LOL they're already breaking out the "far left" s**t .LOL

[Mickey7]

I think you would be hard pressed to find any historian or political biographer who would agree with your characterization of Clinton's governance as "far left" (NAFTA and deregulation are hardly progressive initiatives). Had Clinton's governing style been the cause of the "revolt,' he would not have been reelected. Years of abuse of power and corruption by Democrats in Congress and a sustained ruthless and dishonest attack by the right is what led the people to revolt.

I at least thought we would have a week or so before people starting predicting or declaring Obama's presidency a failure. Any chance we can wait until he's actually elected before the post-mortems start?

[jsarets]

The first major legislation Clinton signed during his presidency was NAFTA. His signature economic policy achievement was welfare to work. In what twisted hyper-reality did Clinton govern as a progressive, let alone far left?

[Osprey3]

YES WE CAN!

[SParkleDragon]

Obama represents the epitome of the American dream, and is our chance for a better America. Greed, corruptuion, and deregulation fueled the economic collapse. Your insinuation that Obama's policies are not up to par is ludicrous. He desires to end the war in Iraq, whereas Bush refused to budge an inch off his position to 'stay the course,' and McCain sees us in Iraq for 'the next hundred years.' This is not losing a war so much as it is extracting ourselves from one begun without provocation, and Afghanistan is precisely where the war should have been. We were hoodwinked by Dubya whose intention was to ensure private corporations like Blackwater and Halliburton would make their share of the billions spent on Iraq. Why would you considered it radical for a leader to support the Second Amendment to the Constitution giveing us the right to bear arms? PLEASE, read Obama's plans to fix what is wrong with America on his website. Obama has the fortitude, personal skills, and temperament to be a strong president, Combined with a Democratic majority in the house and senate, this will create the ‘superhuman' power needed to change this country's direction. All the checks and balances we need were put into place when our nation was founded. Please, keep your sympathies to yourself. There is nothing wrong with hoping for the best. It's one of America's strengths, knowing that we can change - YES WE CAN!

Obama/Biden '08

[tangie]

In the words of the great sage: "Do or do not...ther­e is no try"

Obama has taken that step out on the ledge for us. That's what a great leader does. He inspires, but he also leads by example.

Is he perfect? Of course not, and he'd be the first to say so. He's in a dirty business--­politics--­and has yet come out the other end of the tunnel relatively unmuddied. That light on the other end of that tunnel? That's not the oncoming train--that's hope.

Will he fail us, at times, along the way? Without doubt. Will he pick himself up, dust himself off, and start again? Without doubt, yes. That's what a good leader does.

I can't wait!

[StanCan]

That's the million dollar question: if Obama is elected president, will he run a White House as surefootedly as he ran his campaign? I take his specific campaign rhetoric on Afghanistan, Iraq, trade, tax cuts, etc. about as seriously as he took his own pledge to use public financing in the general election. I am assuming all options will be on the table at the start of his administration and policy will be set in response to what his policymakers decide best serves the total interest of the nation based on current facts and circumstances. He may not be the messiah but he might be competent. That alone would buy him at least two years of my electoral patience.

[tangie]

The way Obama ran his campaign wasn't a fluke. His organizational skills are as much a part of his personality as his leadership abilities. The ability to organize is what the office of the president demands in order to be successful, and McCain's lack was pointed out during his campaign.

A good president will know how to delegate authority, which is another leadership skill that Obama possesses.

As far as this public financing issue is concerned, to me, that is no negative. He had to use his wit and ability to be flexible to overcome a republican machine that was eroding the human rights this country was founded on.

I would want a leader who used everything in his arsenal to overcome a party that seemed bent on serving the minority hard right, to the detriment of the rest of American society.

That he did simply made me respect his intellect even more.

[StanCan]

My comment about Obama's public financing flip flop was not a critique but rather an illustration of how other positions Obama has taken in the heat of a competitive election campaign will almost certainly face similar revision or omission once he faces the realities of actual governance.

According to Neil MacDonald at CBC http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/30/f-rfa-macdonald.htmll), the non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama's campaign promises will increase the deficit to one trillion dollars while McCain's promises will increase it to more than $1.5 trillion. Neither is going to happen.

[wrenny]

Good grief! I don't think his supporters are expecting him to perform miracles - they're just expecting great intelligence and integrity to replace the mess that's been occupying the White House for so long. Personal and organizational skills ARE crucial ones in handling the jobs and challenges of a presidency. All he can do is take one day at a time, like anyone else, and he's demonstrated that he values the kind of advice and brainstorming he can find with other people of intelligence and integrity. The Republicans tried to paint him as a sit-by-and­-do-nothin­g observer during the beginning of the economic crisis chaos, but it's since come out that he was quite active behind the scenes and just didn't want to politicize that. Your concerns are misplaced.

[eshalom]

You're expecting integrity from this star product of Chicago's Daley machine? You're expecting integrity from a guy who threw stateswoman Alice Palmer under the bus? You're expecting integrity from this man who has passively accepted the benefits of the most cruel egregious sexist, misogynist, race-bating attacks on first Hillary Clinton and then Sarah Palin? You're expecting integrity from a man who broke his pledge to accept public campaign financing so he'd be able to buy the presidential election for himself; a man who has broken almost every major promise he made during the primary in order to win the nomination and then made a mad dash to the center, proving himself capable of saying and doing whatever it takes to win. This is how you understand integrity?

Obama seduced the Democratic party into a corrupted primary and a rigged convention and now his blind, euphoric followers continue to glorify him and expect him to be a shining example of intengrity if and when he's elected president tomorrow.

God help us all.

[dirtystrat]

Well said eshalom. Its amazing how two people can look at the same thing and see something completely different. I just don't get it. The man is an empty suit with no accomplishments to his career. He's actually buying the Presidency with untold millions coming from who know where, and promising if you give him your vote, he will cut you a check. Next lets register the 20 million illegals and lets cut them a check. That should just about wrap up the election for 2012. There's your democracy, bough and paid in full.

[TAIsabel]

You must be so satisfied and happy with the last 8 Bush years!! Honestly, how hard is it for you guys to accept defeat? Get out of your bunker, stop drinking the Kool Aid and listen to America and the world....t­hey are speaking.

He did not steal nor corrupt anything, he was chosen by his party. Let's make a deal, two years from now, you can call me on this. I bet that all of us will be in a much better place with President Obama.