Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Obama = disaster. Like McGovern
|
The Democratic Party has made its biggest mistake since… well, the last presidential election. Worse than that, really. Barack Obama is a disaster of McGovernesque proportions, and his nomination will give the McCain camp confidence that what should have been an unwinnable election will be within reach. Let’s be clear. Obama is the weakest, least substantial candidate from either side for a generation or more. At least Michael Dukakis had run Massachusetts. Obama hasn’t run anything, has been in the Senate for five minutes, and has an undistinguished record in Illinois. All he’s got are words – eloquent, uplifting, energising and wholly vacuous words. And nothing else. Particularly, no experience. The likes of Hu Jintao, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin must be rubbing their hands with glee at the notion of dealing with a United States presided over by such a foreign policy toddler like Obama. The absurd comparisons with Kennedy (usually JFK, but if it’s a floundering Hillary Clinton, maybe RFK as well) miss the critical point that Kennedy viewed the presidency through the prism of foreign policy, in which he had substantial expertise. Kennedy knew enough about foreign policy that he was his own Secretary of State, with Dean Rusk running State. The notion of Obama doing the same is frightening. That’s assuming he ever gets there. The Republican political machine is the most vicious on the planet (amongst those that don’t kill people, that is). Courtesy of the Democratic primaries, it has a wealth of material on Obama. Clinton’s attack ads, while providing a useful playbook, will look innocuous once the Republicans fire up. And there’ll be no rising above this sh-t fight with plaintive pleas for “a new kind of politics” for Obama. The old politics still works very well. Worse, in John McCain he’s up against about the only Republican with sufficient product differentiation from the Bush Administration to be competitive. There was a telling comment about McCain back in 2000 when he was battling Bush: “he’s what presidents used to be like”. The war hero thing, the maverick reputation, even his age, tap into the sort of president that exists only in movies, but which McCain may be able to channel. Obama’s only hope is to get Clinton onto the ticket. A solid core of Clinton supporters have consistently said they won’t vote for Obama. A lot of that will be resentment at Clinton’s (grotesquely unfair) treatment at the hands of the press compared to the golden ride Obama has had, and will vanish once the battle is joined. But Obama already has too many major constituencies who have consistently demonstrated they won’t vote for him – lower income workers, Hispanics – to afford to alienate core Democrats who not merely vote but help organise and get out the vote and, crucially, donate. It might stick in the craw, his supporters might loathe the idea, but bringing Clinton on board will be the smartest thing Obama will do all year. |
|
|
23 Comments
Let’s not also forget that despite all their foreign policy experience, both Clinton and McCain got it wrong on Iraq. Obama didn’t. I’ll take good judgement over experience any day.
Here are his 2002 quotes on the Iraq war on WikiQuote
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#2002
Bernard, you’re being a bit rough; BO is much more likely to bring the US back to some degree of respectability on the world stage than the likes of the incumbent (who still has 5 months in which to make recovery impossible; it’s within his capacity). If the US survived Reagan and does survive GWB, BO is hardly a disaster in the making by comparison!
What a ridiculous column. Obama has fought off an aggressive Clinton machine to win from nowhere, garnering unprecedented turnouts and breaking all fundraising records, and Keane acts like he has just stumbled into victory. Whatever he thinks, Clinton’s capacity to inspire is extremely limited - she’s a dynastic candidate, who is tainted by her support of the war, and her association with the DLC wing of the party – who try to win by laying down Misère focusing on swing states, and positioning the party in a way that enables and boosts the talking points of Republicans. We can see this destructive tendency looking at the way she has run her campaign, and the way Ford, the new DLC leader, was positively gushing in response to McCain’s recent speech. I’m sorry, but the future of the party is clearly with the Dean-Obama wing, who’re at least prepare to fight in 50 states with good candidates - putting the Democrats on the front foot. If Keane is so worried about the capacity of Republicans to frame elections he should stop accepting and amplifying their frames - as only then will the Dems be able to shake the perception of the uninformed that they don’t have the same fire in the belly as Republicans.
As for this experience furph, Keane can mock Obama’s short stay in the Senate all he likes, but he hasn’t even done basic research into his accomplishments. Obama has sponsored legislation on arms control, proliferation, campaign finance reform, and has been active on the Foreign Relations Committee -which is pretty decent record for a junior senator. He also has a background at Harvard Law school - where he achieved distinction by being the first black editor of their prestigious Law Review – and as a Constitutional law lecturer. That might not mean anything to Keane, but it is impressive to anyone who knows about the demanding realities of ivy league achievement.
Foreign policy toddler? Come one, that’s just childish rhetoric. What evidence does Keane have for such a statement? Seems Keane hasn’t done any research into any of the candidates actual foreign policy views, which are available in respectable periodicals such as Foreign Affairs, or likewise thee views of their core advisers, but has simply allowed the talking points of Fox News and the relative gloss favoured by Obama in his speeches (which are purposely not wonkish or policy based) to shape his perception about their experience. Even a quick look at Obama’s foreign policy team shows they have rich experience, and that his views are hardly lightweight. Keane thinks he knows better than Zbigniew Brzezinski, who fully backs Obama, what a substantial foreign policy looks like? Get real! Obama’s policy is certainly better than McCain’s which promise to simply continue the Bush legacy.
Also sad to see Keane buying into the McCain myth that he’s really got substantial differentiation from Bush. Fact is, this difference is grossly exaggerated by the press who are basically in love with the crotchety candidate. Some writers above suggest that Obama has gotten a free pass by the press, but what about McCain? He’s frequently mistaken Sunni and Shia, and other parties on the ground in Iraq, and repeatedly gotten basic facts wrong in a Bush-like disingenuous manner, like when he tried suggest Iran was training al Qaeda, and the press, probably out of baby boomer guilt syndrome, simply refuse to ask any tough questions about these serious matters. FFS, Obama received a 90 minute grilling in one of the Dem debates about wearing a f-in flag pin, and they won’t touch McCain when he tries to ratchet up the case against Iran based on false information. On all the key issues apart from immigration, McCain reputation as a principled objector to the Bush platform is basically a fiction. From warrantless wiretapping, to even torture, McCain has not disabled the Bush, or his expansive view of presidential power. McCain get false credit for being a maverick and Keane and bought the myth.
OK I will say it … remember affirmative action / Geraldine Ferraro / The Black Price ‘Bama / Geraldine has been pilloried for saying that ‘Bama would not be where he is if he were not black - hard to argue either as he is black and she is a woman … and the point is? Well if the Presidency of the United States requires as a prerequisite being the member of a minority (women and blacks) with little practical experience or demonstrating good judgement … Whitewater, Bubba and the Rev and Ayres, then either Hillary or ‘Bama is the right person for the job. Mind you the Bib Mac is also a member of a minority (the elderly) so I guess he too qualifies. But don’t worry … we have on our side the rest of the western team; Brown, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Kev suiting up against Chavez, Wheresmedinnerjacket, Putin, Kimbo of the North and that guy from NPRC. In the words of that great modern day philosopher, Alfred E Newman ‘what me worry”? Hell yes …. dogs and razor blades come to mind. Where is L Ron when you need him?
Will “brother of Bobba” Fettes: my tip is McCain in a landslide, while Democrats strengthen their grip on both Houses. I reserve the right to adjust that prediction once, and once only, before the election. But a lot earlier than 3 November.
Willing to run naked through Crikey HQ if I’m wrong.
Bit miffed by the hyperbole here. Disaster eh? You expect us to believe he’d be worse than the incumbent?
I would like to like ‘Bama and certainly I like the idea that an Obama offers. Sadly this man is a sham. Good orator, jingoistic sound bites … “yes we can” etc. but everybody is too afraid (lest they be called racist) to ask the simple question; HOW WILL YOU DO IT? Just one concept explained and I would give him the benefit of the doubt. This guy makes Kev look substantial and is it true that the Rev Wright will be his Chief Foreign Affairs Advisor and head of the Department for Racial Harmony and Integration? And is it true that Hillary has invited ‘Bama to Dallas….? Hollywood has passed on the story of the primaries as being too far removed from reality to be believable… All this would be hillaryous (sic) if it were not so tragic. Vale America … the Once Great.
You know as much as I hate to say it Bernard is right. Obama can’t win, in fact if you look at the polling Obama won all the Dem states Hillary won the flyover and south. They are the people people that need to be brought on board, at the moment Obama is preaching to the converted. Jed Bartlett could win the Democratic candidacy in the real world but the ‘gun Totin’ Church goin’ bitter republicans would never vote him in. And since they are more than half of the population McCain will be the next president. remember Kev won because he Wasn’t a Chifley , Whitlam or even a Keating……..
I thought an extremist wrote this column before checking the byline - I can’t believe Bernard Keane could write this! Make sure you maintain your usually great standards!
Arny seems to be doing alright in California. He’s not run much before. Ronald Regan the darling of the conservatives who started off as a unionist, spruicking for the Actors Guild was also pretty content free and he did all right, so why shouldn’t Obama. It seems to be a requirement of the job that you are content free, but a good spruicker so I reckon Obama will have no trouble at all. If the Putin will lagh at Obama he must be splitting his sides over George W.
Did not take long for OB to confirm the importance of Jewish money to run his campaign. A few comments here seem to suggest that the US president runs the country. Wrong. Combine the three trillion dollars of Saudi money in the US stock market with the Israel and US war machines and the president comes in at about 4th place.
The USA can’t be ‘fixed’ in anyway by changing the president, it is too far gone. But I think Hilary would have been stronger standing up to various lobby groups on a domestic AND international level. OBs eagerness to spruik for Israel on day one is sort of proof of this. I think Russia will be happier with OB than Hilary, as the Serbs assure me that they and the Russians (same tribe really) hated Clinton B and would not deal with Clinton H.
I don’t think I could vote for OB…to use an ozzie political term I just don’t think he has the ticker.
But probebly more importantly…what does China think?
And continue to speak freely and frankly please Bernard.
“But I think Hilary would have been stronger standing up to various lobby groups on a domestic AND international level.”
Yeah, because Hillary and DLC faction to which she belongs don’t have a long inglorious history of pandering to AIPAC? Ha! That’s honestly pretty risible. Hillary is a true Democrat certainly, but she’s a machine candidate not a radical. She accepts non-recurrent big lobby money and relies on the kind of establishment politics that have dominated Washington for so long.
As for Israel policy specifically, both candidates pander, as they both feel constrained to throw some red meat to the likudnik right in electioneering mode, however, what’s important is the sense of how they will govern. Just have a read of Obama’s interview by Jeffrey Goldberg and show me anything from Hillary which demonstrates this kind of sophistication.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_on_zionism_and_hamas.php
“Obama can’t win, in fact if you look at the polling Obama won all the Dem states Hillary won the flyover and south.”
I don’t see how you can possibly make that conclusion from what we know now. There is a wrong tendency here, I think, to assume that given Gore lost the 2000 election, this somehow means the popular vote is unimportant compared to the dictates of the electoral college. And because the electoral college is important, the DLC focus on swing states is the only way to win. But this is simplistic. In actual fact, a separation between the popular vote and the college is actually extremely rare, and only really possible in close elections. Obama is very likely to win a stronger popular vote than Gore did against McCain – which means continuously ignoring his national numbers is unhelpful.
Furthermore, the mistake isn’t just in substituting national polling for state-by-state polling, which is obviously a valid practice; it’s assuming that preferences in the primaries are somehow demonstrative of intentions preclusive in the general, rather than relative judgements of Hillary over Obama. Meaning, the fact that Hillary received relatively narrow victory margins in some important swing states, does not indicate that those votes will simply be transferable to McCain. Some will, many won’t.
Either way, there is far too much tendency to view this as just like any previous election. There are a number of significant reasons it isn’t. For one, the Dems have a significant financial advantage over the Republicans – with some prediction placing their treasure chest at 300 million. This really does blow anything the Republicans can achieve out of the water, as McCain has accepted federal funding, he simply cannot compete at that level. The Democrats will be outspending the Republicans in a way that simply has no modern precedent, and it will force the limited GOP resources to be stretched over a number of previously safe regions, and bring completeness in ways most pundits simply don’t understand.
Also, record voter enrolments in the Democratic primary are another factor. Most people don’t realise this, but in many states there have been more Democrats enrolled and participating in the primaries than the total who have voted in their presidential elections. You can’t simply ignore that, and the comparative lack of the Republican base’s enthusiasm for McCain as a factor in this election. Obama’s capacity to motivate and bring out the youth vote, which has been hyped before but never materialised, (see Dean & McGovern), is a reality, as is his attraction to independents.
Another mistake is to read Obama’s favourables right now, after a gruelling and divisive primary battle, as final result that will never improve, whilst McCain’s as being steady, when he has been comparatively unmolested up ‘till now. This is a serious error – as it’s obvious that Obama will receive a unity windfall, when the Party starts getting behind him attacking McCain, and he has time to campaign in properly in general mode.
Too many people, including Keane and Rundle, have being obsessively focused on small bore issues that they think are likely to divert swing states voter patterns away from national trends. But this isn’t the 90s Clinton era or 2000. This is going to be a national campaign where predictors are going to remain relatively consistent across states.
Finally, I think people are completely underestimating the extent to which the Republican brand is in the toilet right now. Polling shows that views described in the abstract receive more support than if described and attributed to the Republicans. The GOP is in serious trouble, and all their campaign analysts are worried about this. Whatever Keane thinks about McCain having differentiation, it is unlikely to be enough. The most likely scenario is that the Dems take Congress, Obama wins a relatively wide popular vote, and a modest electo
Obama is ahead in the polls, he is ahead with the bookies, he is the more popular candidate. Why do people keep saying that he can’t win? It’s like they’re ignoring all the facts to find some conclusion that simply isn’t there. A Democrat, whoever it was going to be, will win in November.
This is right on the money. Without Hilary on his ticket people just won’t vote…remember it is not complusory in USA. This is by far one of the most insightful pieces I have read of yours. Without Clinton I tip McCain to win and agree with every single word you have written. That is why she will not conceed as she is waiting to be offered VP, otherwise she can still take it to the convention as it is very close. I too think Obama does not want to go down to a Democrat convention dog fight with blood on the floor, but I bet Hilary is up to it. She is just playing the waiting game and makeing Obama sweat a little.
I think the comparison with JFK is correct but for different reasons; he was catholic obama is black and many don’t want them sitting in the white house.
Oops Bernard! You are upsetting you’re bread and butter…. Good job it’s only US politics!….still.. Brave man!
Let’s substitute Kevin Rudd for Barrack Obama and then see were a bloke with fluffy words and no idea can get. After all, you in the media gave Rudd the softest ride into power of any man in history, pretty much the same as Obama has already gotten from the media. And tell me the soft cocks in the US media won’t continue to run a soft line - no-one asks any real questions… exactly the same as what we’ve got here. Pop quiz - what does Kevin Rudd stand for? What does Barrack Obama stand for? The answer is themselves.
JFK-foreign policy expert-Bay of Pigs ,Vietnam , the ‘best and brightest’ little brother Bobby Senator McCarthy aide -scared witless of missy J Edgar Hoover”s sh-t files complete abrogation of any movemet on civil rights continuing spying on Martin Luther King not to mention daddy buying the election etc,etc etc
Let’s all sing along with Bernard”Once there was a spot…..”
Out damned spot.
So is it your viewpoint that Clinton has *more* experience? Lets make a comparison.
Obama: Illinois State Senate: 1996-2004, US Senate 2005-2008 (hardly 5 minutes)
Clinton: US Senate 2001-2008
Clinton can spin the First Lady thing as much as she wants, it’s not political experience. I wouldn’t get operated on by my doctor’s wife.
And what has Clinton said of any substance? It’s all been negative campaigning against Obama and outright lies (e.g. snipers in Bosnia)
I usually agree with your columns Bernard, but I think you are a bit off the mark this time.
What a joke. This column is bland, unreasonable, unsubstantial and offers no serious consideration of Obama’s style, his politics or the nothing-less-than-a-phenomenon aura associated with him. Sorry Bernard, but this is tripe. If Hilary wasn’t broke and parochial, I’d swear you were on the payroll.
Of course it’s true that John McCain represents, realistically or not, what “presidents used to be like.” Where else can a 71-year-old Republican war-lord point, other than backwards? Last year we saw some evidence in our own federal election og the power of launching a generational debate; ie the desire for change vs the stability of consistentsy, and Kevin Rudd emerged the clear victor. On the U.S. stage next year that’s going to be massively amplified: a 46-year-old inspiration, who comes about at a perceived time of need, versus a 71-year-old who still reckons the war in Iraq is a great idea.
Every once in a while I read an article so trashy and wishy-washy, so outrageously out-of-step that it forces me to very harshly reassess the journalist. Andrew Bolt averages about once a week. Congratulations, B-Man: your cherry well and truly been popped.
What a load of bullshit Bernard.
He has certainly shown substancial leadership skills in marshalling together a disciplined nomination campaign. Obama has the substance to inspire alot of people and see of a determined experienced political machine in the Clintons. You do not rise to the top of Chicago politics without knowing a thing or too about playing the game.
The American polls also speak against what you say with them showing Obama as having a better rating against McCain than Clinton.
I think we are seeing in Australia at the moment a period of definition in a new inexperienced leader, as to whether Rudd is a populist vacuum, or whether underneath there is the determination to make some sort real difference and mark in his Prime ministership. It is yet to be determined whether he will be a substantive present, but a ranchers mule could do better that the current President.
The fact that America may vote in a thoughtful intelligent black President who voted against the Iraq war, would send a message to the rest of the world that America has matured as a Nation and put away the banjos.
Do you copy this directly from the HRC website?
Well if the CNN national poll of polls trend is anything to go by i hope you like being naked in front of your colleagues Bernie!
Spot on Bernie. The Democrats will regret this decision. I can see the Republican demolition job already on Obama - soft on terrorists, no real christian values (bring back the pastor again), little experience in foreign policy, soft on crime during his time in the state legislature, etc, etc. This Presidential election will be over well before November.
Keith