May 21, 2008
Obama - FDR and McGovern
For a while this felt like it was going to be a bad night for Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton won a huge victory in Kentucky - and the television pundits had hours to dwell gloomily on Obama’s failure there. But Kentucky was then offset by a big win for Obama in Oregon.
The fact that Obama chose to give his evening speech in Iowa - the site of his first crucial victory - had excited speculation that he was going to claim that the Democratic race was over. Instead he contented himself with the claim that he is”within reach of the Democratic nomination” - which is undeniable. Instead Obama chose to signal his inevitable victory by a change in tone and focus. He was magnanimous towards Hillary, in the manner of a victor. And he focused the most effective part of his speech on an attack on John McCain.
The McCain bashing was well done. The Obama line is to acknowledge McCain’s reputation as a principled maverick - but to suggest that McCain has sold out to secure the Republican nomination. He claimed that McCain has now embraced Bush’s policies on health-care, tax and Iraq. This allows Obama to re-assert his claim that he is the “change” candidate.
How will all this shape up come November? I’m out of the prediction business for the moment. I think you could make a plausible case both for an Obama landslide - and for an Obama blow-out.
The landslide argument is that this is the Democrats’ year. The Republicans are doing dreadfully in the polls and in recent elections. Iraq and the economy both favour the Democrats. Obama is a much more effective fund-raiser than McCain, he is younger and he is bringing millions of new people into politics - he is the change candidate in a year in which America desperately wants change. He will win on the promise of a New Deal, just as Franklin Roosevelt once did.
The blow-out thesis would point out that Obama is doing appallingly badly among working-class whites, the “Reagan Democrats” who have been the crucial swing voters in previous presidential elections. He has fared badly in states that the Democrats pretty well have to win like Ohio and Pennsylvania. He is also acutely vulnerable on the crucial issue of patriotism - because of his association with Pastor “God damn America” Wright - and because he is running against a war hero. His popularity with the media and with the educated “chattering classes” is disguising these flaws. But come November, he is all set to be the George McGovern of 2008.
So is Obama FDR or McGovern? Let me fall back on the worst of journalistic cliches - only time will tell.
It will be a blow out!…the South will be in play due to new young voters and an energized black voting base…But it will be the Western states that make all the differnce. The Democratic, but especially Independent voters (those with no party affiliation) strength will surprise everyone!… the regional party balance of power will shift after this election…
I dont know about a New Deal…but for sure, Obama is the Real Deal!!!!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 21st, 2008 at 7:18 am | Report this commentObama is the most charismatic candidate in decades, reminiscent of Kennedy. And yet he has struggled to clinch the Democratic nomination, despite his main opponent’s unpopularity (the votes Hillary has garnered were more anti-Obama than pro-Hillary). Which means Obama has many flaws as a candidate, mostly centring around the political ethos of the African-Anerican community, i.e. perceived “lack of patriotism”.
There will be neither a land-slide nor a blow-out. Instead this will be a closely-contested (and bitter) campaign. Only a few months ago it seemed this election would be fought in the centre. Now it seems this will be another polarising campaign, with both sides massively mobilising their core constituencies.
Posted by: RCS | May 21st, 2008 at 7:32 am | Report this commentObama will need to choose his VP very, very carefully. GR is right - it is the white working class vote that will decide this election and at the moment Obama is losing it.
Posted by: AYC | May 21st, 2008 at 8:26 am | Report this commentHmm, it is still too early to talk about FDR because FDR means Depression and War. So better a McGovern…even if Obama looks more a Hugo Chavez from a historical point of view.
Posted by: Enrique | May 21st, 2008 at 10:17 am | Report this commentLisa-Helene Lawson, since you seem optimistic about Obama’s chances, did you mean to say “landslide” instead of “blowout”? The latter term, as GR uses it, indicates a big defeat, not a big victory.
The supposed importance of a VP choice is also widely overrated. I have been following presidential elections for more than half a century, and I can recall very few in which the VP choice made any difference at all, except, pehaps negatively (witness Nixon’s “Checkers” speech that saved him from being dumped by Eisenhower in 1952, or Eagleton’s withdrawal for alleged mental health reasons from one of the Democratic tickets - I forget which - McGovern’s?).
A notable exception, of course, was Lyndon Johnson, running with John F. Kennedy, who probably would have lost without him in 1960 (the first year that I was old enough to vote). Going back again to the Eisenhower years, how many of us who went crazy over Adlai Stevenson (as I did as a teenager, with the same passion that now makes me an Obamaniac more than fifty years later) cared about the fact that his VP pick, Alabama Senator John Sparkman, was a diehard segregationist?
I agree with RCS that the election is more likely to be a close one. However, instead of his polite phrase “polarising campaign”, I would substitute “racist campaign”. By the time that November rolls around, heavy Republican propaganda will probably have most voters thinking that Jeremiah Wright was the real VP choice, regardless of whose name is actually on the ticket.
And that will be only the beginnning. As Jurek Martin wrote in his column of May 20, there is a huge groundswell of anti-immigrant feeling that has been dormant during the primary season. This will, in all probability, take center stage during the general election campaign, especially directed against Latino immigrants. Instead of only one Willie Horton, as was the case in 1988, there will be “12 million” Guillermo Hortonez illegal immigrants for the Republicans to exploit.
Posted by: algasema | May 21st, 2008 at 10:25 am | Report this commentI keep asking about Obama what does he propose to change to what. How does he propose to change what to what along with Congress and the US Supreme Court. He is a good orator but history has shown that good orators are not necessarily good for the respective countries or groups of people.
Posted by: R Potter | May 21st, 2008 at 10:26 am | Report this commentIf Americans elect Obama it will mean that the quota system of affirmative action is outdated as Americans will choose a person according to his abilities, intelligence and merit, not for any other reason…but it is true if one of every nine American is black they will feel better represented. And the same will go for Hispanics once they integrate into the American electoral machine. By 2050 1 of every 4 Americans is expected to be Hispanic…probably Americans will choose an Anglo-Hispanic, a mix similar to Obama.
Posted by: Enrique | May 21st, 2008 at 10:37 am | Report this commentI am not an American but I think a lot of white people will vote for Obama mostly because of their guilt of what their ancestors done to colored people. I hope I am wrong because those are wrong reasons. I hope he wins though he is definetly the change America is seeking. I think that Americans will be grateful for the mere fact that Bush’s administration is nearing an end.
Posted by: Simao | May 21st, 2008 at 11:06 am | Report this commentMcGovern lost so pathetically to Nixon because Nixon was the incumbent president in the middle of an actual, protracted war.
McCain does not have the clout, the reputation and the advantages of incumbbency that Nixon had and America is not engaged in a real war like Vietnam but in a stupid, sloganeering effort that Bush and those who yank his chain have mislabeled as “war n terror”.
The two situations do not bear real comparison.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 21st, 2008 at 11:35 am | Report this commentIn judging Obama’s epitaph, the other side of the coin will be the performance of McCain.
It seems that even some of the pro-Israeli groups in the US have had their fill of Bush’s policies (and presumably McCain’s follow up of the self-same policies). This indicates that the support for McCain may be a lot softer than presumed and, absent the funds of the moneyed Jewish lobby, his campaign will be even less competitive.
This is from the web site of J Street which decribes it self as the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.
http://jstreet.org/campaigns/thats-offensive-mr-president
Quote
Speaking to Israel’s Parliament, President Bush accused those who believe in diplomacy to make America and Israel safe of indulging in a “foolish delusion” and the “false comfort of appeasement.”
Even more offensive, he likened us to those who favored talking to rather than defeating Adolf Hitler on the eve of World War II. How dare he invoke the memory of the Holocaust to justify his disastrous policies
Unquote
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 21st, 2008 at 1:03 pm | Report this commentBuyers remorse for the dems starts on 4th June. Dukakis is likely a closer analogy than either FDR or McGovern. His campaign was crippled by a bad photo of him sitting in a tank, and Willie Horton — and the 2008 equivalents of these are out there and waiting. Once the Wall St. Journal Editorial Page and FoxNews meat-grinder gets cranked up, things will head downward quickly for Sen. Obama.
Posted by: dcs | May 21st, 2008 at 1:05 pm | Report this commentSimao: “I am not an American but I think a lot of white people will vote for Obama mostly because of their guilt of what their ancestors done to colored people.”
Come again? Do you know anything about politics? I’m not sure which country you live in, but since when did any alleged historical guilt ever sway any election in similar circumstances? Britain, Turkey, Spain, Belgium, France anda hundred others - take your pick.
Outside of the liberal elites, Obama’s colour will unfortunately count against him. I would like to see him fail because of his lack of principles and political bottom. Personally, I think it deplorable that the colour of his skin might count against him, but don’t kid yourself that this is a unique American problem, or that Americans are any different from anyone else. They’re not.
Posted by: AYC | May 21st, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Report this commentAlgasema”Lisa-Helene Lawson, since you seem optimistic about Obama’s chances, did you mean to say “landslide” instead of “blowout”? The latter term, as GR uses it, indicates a big defeat, not a big victory”
well it was late for me when I wrote it …and now I am in my favorite cafe with my latte in hand, so to be clear…MCCain is going to to be blown out out out out by Obama…it’s realignment time in politics…look to the West …especially to all of us out here (like me)who refuse to affiliate with either party… ever again…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 21st, 2008 at 3:43 pm | Report this commentI agree, Lisa-Helene Lawson. Please enjoy your latte. By the way, can anyone explain what argula is? I am completely in the dark.
Meanwhile, Hillary is still in it, she claims. Fox News says that the only thing the Clintons have ever cared about is power. The only true thing I can think of that Fox has ever said.
Posted by: algasema | May 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm | Report this commentIf the Democrat picks Obama without the full backing of Clinton they are doom to fail, if they pick Clinton over him they will be crushed.The only way out is for Hilary Clinton to take the higher ground and bell the cat, she need to bow out so that Obama can fully unmasked to show us how he will tackle McCain and the right wing machineries
Posted by: osu akande | May 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pm | Report this commentThe truth is that the “latinamericanisation” of USA is unstoppable. America on the midterm will be like the rest of the Continent a mestizo nation with a diminishing white minority.
Posted by: Enrique | May 21st, 2008 at 4:53 pm | Report this commentalgasema: argula is roquette.
I agree with Enrique that the “latinamericanisation” of USA is unstoppable, however I think this is an excellent thing as other than some very general observations (i.e. generally speak spanish & catholic) there is no single unifying factor (geographic, cultural, physical or historical) of these c23 countries.
As such the main effect will be a renewed American sense of we are different but the same that the country has begun to forget hence the silly questions about a flag pin on a Senator.
With any luck a few years from now we will have discussions that we currently face with Obama about our first ‘clean & articulate’ (sarcasm) hispanic president though getting into the prediction business I would wager that Bobby Jindal might be our next non white (an awful overly broad term better would be ‘non visible ethic minority’) President presuming an Obama win in November.
Posted by: JBA | May 21st, 2008 at 8:53 pm | Report this commentThank you, JBA. I will look up “roquette”.
Posted by: algasema | May 21st, 2008 at 10:33 pm | Report this commentLisa-Helene:
From what i gather form Kentucky, Penna, Oregon i am inclined to think that race will be a deciding factor.
I do not know how the latinos in LA and NY will vote. I cannot call this game.
If McCain comes in, watch how fast some ex-friends of the US will disengage.
We will have another neocon party for a while but the ROW will pull the punch
Posted by: Cassandra | May 21st, 2008 at 10:39 pm | Report this commentbowl. I can guarantee you a very nasty hangover for these fellows.
He is a Michael Dukakis.
THis year the Democrats will learn about that other cliche - Be Careful What You Wish For
Posted by: Liz | May 22nd, 2008 at 1:49 am | Report this commentGreat commentary, but dead wrong…
Posted by: WPH | May 22nd, 2008 at 2:19 am | Report this commentAmerica is getting MORE conservative all the time and the core American values of Individualism and innovation will prevail over a very shallow divisive and “group” oriented left wing campaign by Obama and the elitist left movement in the US. As for a Latino/minority takeover of the political forces in the USA it will never happen as we will meld into the universal people we always end up as.
Take a look at the 2004 campaign and all of the same things were being said. This shows how out of touch the main stream media and the left have moved from the core American thought process.
Hi Cassandra!
Race will be one of many factors, and not the most important…the divide you are seeing in West Virginia and Kentucky is not race but cultural…Senator Jim Webb has written about this and his new book addresses it also “A Time To Fight”…hopefully he will be Obama’s Vice president…
The neo-cons are finished more or less. … Hezbollah coup in Lebanon was a watershed event for the region, …US neo-con policies and even US clout are finished…not even Obama will bring back US clout to previous days…if the Israelis are smart they keep the US OUT of Syrian-Israel negotiations…
The neo-cons know it’s over…Kristol and company are all trying to reinvent themselves to remain relevant and keep those lucrative pundit jobs alive …Hey Bruce Kovner! there are better ways for you to spend your money! Build more schools of Music!
Algasema, On arugula…think Italian greens! …
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 22nd, 2008 at 2:48 am | Report this commentI wonder why the DEMS are coddling HIllary??!!! …she is REALLY GOING GOOFY …now she is comparing Fl and mI to what is going on in Zimbawe …Thank God Obama came along …or we would have been stuck with her!…Zinbawe! Good Grief! What a loon!
If he wins, he’ll be FDR, if he loses, McCain will be Hoover. No matter who takes it, they will need a new deal, massive state investment in the economy. The private sector simply isn’t going to have it together…and wealth is so top heavy right now that it’s not even funny.
If Obama is smart, he’ll wait till he gets the nod, and that will hopefully takt awhile…let Clinton drag it out. Then he should move hard to the left on economic issues, and side step the social issues, and attack anyone using a social issue as part of a campaign strategy.
This way, even if he loses, McCain will come in with more of the free market insanity, and light the whole system on fire and take all the blame.
But again, no matter who wins, it’s inevitable that the US will jack up interest rates again, protect the dollar as the only American brand, and kill equity markets around the world. That’s all we have left of the empire… the fed is not going to give up the last remaining US advantage. The cheap dollar is a play to suck everyone in a bit longer and keep them hooked on oil.
Heresy, i’m aware.
Evan
Posted by: Evan Rowe | May 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 am | Report this commentmyspace.com/Catalonia
This election is as much about the media as it is about the candidates. Many of us who have worked in the media, are from working class backgrounds and have seen from the inside how stupid and incompetent most of it’s upper-class practitioners are, although we like Obama, are secretly hoping for a McCain win so that in the wake of the McCain surge, we can begin to call out our former employers for dismissing our far more insightful, experiential views.
The white working class might be galvanized by the negative portrayal of them. Which overall, that would be a good thing because they do constitute the largest number of disadvantaged households in the United States. The rate of inter-racial children in this group is also 23% so to call them racist is dumb, classist and a ripe scenario for a McCain landslide.
McCain, if you look at how he is advancing his campaign, has only used Bush to build power and will be, by September, a true McCain again.
And as far as change is concerned, Obama has to remember he is running against the guy who was largely responsible for kicking the Abrahamoff cabal out of Washington. That is pretty harrowing change to someone like me in their early 30’s who actually reads instead of getting their political information from MTV like many of the haigographic Obama supporters.
$50 says Obama blow-out and then, the biggest purge of the U.S. media we’ve ever seen. After all, the IMF only rates our press freedom at .58 on a 0 to 1 scale.
Read Mark Granovetter’s “The Strength of Weak Ties” to understand the power and rightness of what I am saying.
And also, I’m right about every trend I predict and my writing at Coolhunting.com shows that record to be true.
Posted by: Kristopher Irizarry-Hoeksema | May 22nd, 2008 at 6:41 am | Report this commentAmerica and Americans give the impression at this moment of wandering through history aided only by a white cane.
Four years ago, in perfect good faith, the American people reelected a war criminal who had proved to be totally incompetent… even as a war criminal. Now they are ready to elect president a community organizer under the patronage of Dick Daley, with no experience relevant to managing the affairs of a superpower… pure Frank Capra, “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”.
I see two different scenarios:
(1)Obama wins and reality and the interest groups and his desire for a second term cause him to fudge. I don’t think he has anything near Jimmy Carter’s integrity or anything like Bill Clinton’s sex drive, so he will be much duller than people think. The kids will be heartbroken.
(2)McCain wins and this means the end of Goldwater/Reagan Republicanism. This would truly transform American politics. Interesting idea: to survive, the Republicans commit ideological hara-kiri.
I really like what Obama says and I am horrified by many of the things McCain says recently, as I am rather cynical, (the Spanish say that the devil knows more because of his age than because he is the devil) I pay little attention to anything a politician says when running for office and much attention to what he or she has actually done when in office.
In this case, as Obama has done practically nothing, I am left with what he says.
In the case of McCain, he has a very long record, some of it is quite attractive and some less. It does give you the feeling that there won’t be many nasty surprises and there might even be some pleasant ones.
Who to vote for?
Since I would have to vote absentee from Illinois, and the Land of Lincoln, will surely adorn itself with leis and hula skirts to vote massively for its favorite son, voting even for Ralph Nader would be a waste of time, so I probably will sit this one out.
Posted by: David Seaton | May 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 am | Report this commentWPH, With “Latinamericanisation” of the USA I am not talking about hispanics but about a mestizo (mixed race) majority in the USA in the midterm with a diminishing white minority…making America similar to the rest of the Continent, like another Latinamerican country.
That´s why America´s “Latinamericanisation” is unstoppable as whites are becoming a minority and people of mixed race (like Obama or Chavez) will be the majority in the midterm. America is becoming a big Colombia or a big Venezuela with a diminishing white minority.
Posted by: Enrique | May 22nd, 2008 at 8:22 am | Report this commentI think the election will be close, but if Obama’s description of McCain as the principled maverick who has sold out to secure the Republican nomination sticks, Obama has every chance. And I have to admit as an independent more inclined to support McCain, that his recent closeness with Bush is not disheartning and many of his recent statements are positively disturbing.
Posted by: Kerry | May 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm | Report this commentEven more difficult to understand in my opinion is his deliberate courting of Pastor Hagee and everything he stands for in this election year. The nutty Wright is one of the reasons why I was leaning towards McCain. I find it difficult to reconcile his maverick reputation with the fact that he courted the endorsement of a man who does not believe in peace negotiations in Israel and preaches that God sent Hitler to kill Jews, so that they will return to Israel, so that the son of God will come back and fulfil scriptures (Rapture). I am simplifying but in essence this seems to be the message.
I wish politicians would stop courting preachers and that religion would really have no place in politics, but if he was looking for some sort of religious endorsement, why this one? there are other influential preachers with less crazy ideas. Does his relationship with Hagee’s church have anything to do with his recent ridiculous support of Bush’s idiotic statement regarding diplomacy and appeasement?
My take is that both candidates have strong negatives, and it will be about which candidate is more successful in presenting the other as the greatest gamble.
I don’t know if I should be gratified or otherwise, but I think some columnists (not necessarily Gideon) glean a lot from some of the comments on this blog.
Posted by: RCS | May 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 pm | Report this commentRCS, you are referring, no doubt, to my incisive question about argula. Thanks to Lisa-Helene Lawson for clearing it up for me.
At first, I was tempted to question the relevance of enrique’s comments about whites becoming a minority in America. After all, there are more pertinent issues, which some posts on this blog have mentioned. Will we elect FDR or Hoover? Will we start more wars so that our military-industrial complex can profiteer even more outrageously than it has in Iraq??
Will we reinstate the draft? No one has mentioned this, but I cannot imagine that McCain, if elected, would wait more than a week after inauguration to start trying to put this in motion. But, enrique is right. White voters are terrified of losing their majority status and, to use Samuel Huntington’s word in his Latino-bashing book “Who Are We?” privileges.
Rather than actually becoming a minority (as they already are in California, for example) whites would rather endure more Iraqs, more foreclosures, more poverty, more lack of insurance, more Guantanamos, amd more of the other horrors of the Bush years.
Therefore, this campaign will be fought on three issues only: Race, Race and Race. Who can doubt that the Republicans will have the upper hand?
Posted by: algasema | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:33 am | Report this commentNow that we are well and truly in the oil crisis, isn’t McCain missing
one of his strongest arguments? But it may be a vote-losing argument
and he’s already behind, see below.
If Obama wins and pursues the accelerated withdrawal from Iraq that
is maybe the main policy change that is the basis for his appeal, doesn’t
that mean that the US loses control of the second largest oil reserves in
the world?
Won’t the Indians and the Chinese with their enormous and growing energy appetite, not to mention the Russians with their old strong
ties to Iraq, be quick to move in? Won’t they resort to intelligent
economics rather than our stupid politics?
Advised no doubt by Goldman Sachs?
McCain has been forced by public pressure to back away from his hundred year throwaway line, even though it was coupled with the
condition that US forces not be in harm’s way, as in Germany, Japan,
etc. Now it’s his four-year term that he says will get the job done.
He doesn’t even mention oil in this context, it’ll all be okay because
US “security” will be okay.
But how can you have security without oil?
As of now it looks like a 60-40 loss for McCain according to Intrade
and the Iowa Presidential Poll, which seem to be the best predictors.
Wouldn’t that be be even worse for McCain if he said we have to
stay in Iraq for the oil?
So what will happen? Won’t the energy crisis become even worse if
Obama wins and executes his accelarated Iraq withdrawal promise?
As you conclude, Gideon, only time will tell. One can only add,
Posted by: Frank Peel | May 23rd, 2008 at 5:50 am | Report this commentyes it most certainly will.
RCS 22.May on blog content.
“Blogs live from User-generated Content” was the headline of an article a week ago in the Zürich paper “Neue Zürcher Zeitung, where there is a long blog about the referendum taking place on June 1st in Switzerland. The subject being voted on is whether to change the procedure for naturalisation of foreigners or to leave the status quo as it is.
Posted by: J.J. | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:51 am | Report this commentalgasema,
I was indeed very surprised that as a New Yorker you had never tasted roquette!
But I was not referring to that. I meant newspaper columnists, not blog commentators: I have read more than one (printed) column which I felt borrowed from some of the ideas posted by contributors on this blog (as I said, not necessarily Gideon).
Of course, columnists usually glean ideas from many people and sources and then elaborate and expand on them. Most importantly, they have great writing skills.
Posted by: RCS | May 23rd, 2008 at 7:14 am | Report this commentKerry: “Even more difficult to understand in my opinion is his [McCain’s] deliberate courting of Pastor Hagee…”
I’m sure we’re all glad to see McCain has now denounced Hagee and distanced himself from him. Savvy politics.
Posted by: AYC | May 23rd, 2008 at 8:22 am | Report this commentFrank Peel, I am sure that it would be very comforting to the families of the 4,000 US solders who have died in Iraq so far, not to mention the relatives of the tens of thousands who have been seriously injured, to know that their loved ones died in a battle for control of the world’s second largest oil reserves, as is the unfortunate reality.
As it happens, there is an army recruiting center near where I work. Perhaps I should stop by and suggest that “More Oil for America” could be a good slogan for boosting recruitment results, which, as I understand it, are now under some pressure.
Posted by: algasema | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm | Report this commentI meant: “soldiers”.
Posted by: algasema | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:33 pm | Report this commentObama is preaching a Euro-style socialism in his “Blueprint For Change” - but are Americans ready to pay 40% income tax for universal health care? And who exactly are “innocent homeowners”?
Here’s hoping Obama gets pasted come November. Although he deserves our thanks for smashing the execrable Clinton clan. No manic, screeching Billary in the White House!
Posted by: Shevvers | June 1st, 2008 at 4:25 am | Report this comment