Just to Be Clear on Barack ‘Obambi’ Obama and the Presidential Race
This blog has had a bit of unable-to-resist levity at Barack “Obambi” Obama’s expense during the past few days (”Obambi” is a name given to the Illinois senator by the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd).
Then on Sunday, the Washington Post, in what I now believe was a “let’s get it out of the way now so we can say it’s old news later” piece, noted irregularities relating to Obama’s home purchase last year in Chicago. There are also issues (brought out at the same BizzyBlog link that discusses the WaPo article) with wife Michelle’s amazing promotion to a position nearly tripling her salary a few months after Obama’s election to the US Senate, plus her presence on the board of a company that does business with the liberally-despised Wal-Mart, has laid many mostly Hispanic workers off, and pays its CEO a beyond-the-pale outrageous amount of money.
Then there are the “minor” things, such as the fact that Obama promised when he ran for the Senate that he would serve a full term (that promise is now, cough-cough, “inoperable”), that he’s as far-left as they come on prolife, economic, social, and other issues, and that an Obama trip to a foreign land would have meant East Chicago, Indiana until just a couple of years ago.
Just so we’re clear — It’s been fun, but I don’t think any of it matters.
That’s because I agree with the prediction of Kevin McCullough at Townhall.com. I didn’t say that I like his prediction, because I don’t, and I would enjoy being called a complete idiot (well, partial idiot) if I’m wrong.
This October column makes it very clear that McCullough doesn’t like his own prediction either. I only said I agree with it.
His prediction, made in his December 3 column, is that if Barack Obama runs, he will be the Democrat nominee, and that Barack Obama will win the presidency in November 2008.
McCullough’s reasons are sound and self-explanatory: Raging Liberals, Disgusted Conservatives, Exhausted Moderates, Energized Blacks, and Co-opted Evangelicals. Translation: Unstoppable majority, perhaps (my guess, not McCullough’s) even a 15%+ landslide. McCullough’s last item, which I never anticipated (who could have?) is what has turned me from my “Obama as Veep” prediction back in October (hey, I was wrong; I’m sorry) to “Obama will be Prez.” Since then, mega-Church evangelicals like Rick Warren have given Barack Obama all the intellectual cover he will ever need to neutralize criticism by religious people who try to call attention to what the man actually believes.
I’ve followed politics for over 30 years, and I see an electorate that appears ready to jettison substance, which Obama almost totally lacks, in favor of style, which he possesses an overabundance of. I see no reason to doubt McCullough’s prediction, and see no candidate on the horizon who will disrupt Obama’s run in any meaningful way, especially given the media wind (or “O-basm,” as Rush likes to call it) at his back. There are already signs that Hillary Clinton is watching her world crumble (McCullough believes, though I couldn’t find evidence elsewhere beyond the existence of an Obama-Soros meeting [HT Church Militant], that this is no longer true; Soros supported Obama in his 2004 Senate run).
Though a lot can obviously change in 23 months, I will be operating on this prediction for the foreseeable future. This is just as well, as I have no intention of turning this site into a blog that obsesses over presidential politics, polls, flubs of the day, and the like. I’ll certainly look at any concrete proposals candidates formulate, and follow the specifics, especially relating to tax and fiscal policy, of what goes on in Washington (and Columbus, and elsewhere) in the meantime. I probably won’t be able to ignore the true “over the tops” that happen from time to time (like Kerry’s insult to the troops; Kerry has, since I predicted his possible upper hand in the early primaries, done everything he can to make that nearly impossible), but that will be the extent of it.
But I don’t believe that following the horse race, which ordinarily leaves me cold anyway, will be necessary, because of what I believe is the accuracy (but definitely not the desirability) of Kevin McCullough’s prediction. Anyway, it’s not like there’s a shortage of other topics to blog on.
I have to hope you (and McCullough) are wrong. I take comfort from the fact that the early favorite often falls by the way side. Obama’s real strength is his relative obscurity. Many Republicans are displeased with the perceived front runners on the GOP side (McCain/Guiliani) for various reasons. The only way a McCain could get my vote is if his opponent was Sen. Clinton or someone equally unacceptable. Obama just doesn’t generate that kind of antipathy (yet).
My guess is Obama has never really been looked at thoroughly. Running for state senator doesn’t garner much scrutiny. His U.S. Senate race was against a hopeless candidate so no money was spent on opposition research. That money is being spent now, I’d imagine.
Comment by LargeBill — December 20, 2006 @ 10:32 am
Never seen a more bitter, depresssed, angry electorate.
They complain about the decline of everything on their blackberries where they post from their Lexuses en route to the Starbucks for a 5 dollar cup of coffee.
Verily, this is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover.
Comment by Mark McNally — December 20, 2006 @ 10:40 am
#1, #2 — I would be among the happier people on earth to be wrong.
Comment by TBlumer — December 20, 2006 @ 11:14 am
I can’t see any real estate deal or quid-pro-quo scandal felling any of the Dem nominees, can you? Let’s be realistic - they’ve all got similar problems (Clinton more than most), so when it’s that widespread the outrage is going to be pretty minimal.
I will say that, as callow as he is, Obama is definitely an attractive candidate compared to Clinton. There’s not an inch of daylight between their political positions, of course, but at least you wouldn’t be dealing with the Clintons any more.
Comment by meep — December 21, 2006 @ 5:05 am
#4, that’s some consolation, to be sure.
Comment by TBlumer — December 21, 2006 @ 8:00 am
Very interesting, Tom. I’m not sure why you believe Obama lacks substance. What would he have to produce for you to alter that impression? And then lead you to just not like the substance - :)
Comment by Jill — December 23, 2006 @ 10:57 am
#6, Jill, Substance mostly equals accomplishment and a track record (in his case, a lack thereof). The answer to your question would be at least the full term in the Senate he promised voters when he ran.
Comment by TBlumer — December 23, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
#6, I also would be inclined to
resentresemble your last sentence. :–>Comment by TBlumer — December 23, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Hmmm. I don’t know, Tom. Help me better understand: is that your threshold because we’re talking about the President? As opposed to anything lower or less all-encompassing? Because for sure people running for local positions, even statewide positions, might fail your test - regardless of party-affiliation - if we’re looking to previous political experience (since we all have experienced, at one time or another, being in a place where you need experience to get a job or position but you can’t get the experience without getting a job or position).
What is helpful in your response is that you don’t mean the specifics of a plan or ideas or action, when you say substance. Which is actually what I would have thought you’d meant. You mean, experience, in general, yes?
Okay - so - now - if we do apply the at least finish out the Senate term, what does that do to the conservative field? (I’ve not studied it much - only familiar with Romney, McCain, Gingrich…I forget who else! sorry)
Also - would you say, and I’m getting academic here now, i realize, would you say that after a certain point, someone is TOO entrenched to be a good candidate??
Comment by Jill — December 23, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
#9, yeah, it is definitely a presidential thing. I am clearly not as worried about political experience for other offices (e.g., having supported Pierce for OH Senate), as long as there is a lot of meaningful life experience there (in the Pierce case, building a business, learning about the ugly side of the bureaucracy, many years as a high-school teacher, etc.). I do not think Obama has made any kind of case that he has meaningful political OR life experience.
Also note: The electorate likes governors, and has not elected a senator for Prez since Kennedy in 1960, because governors actually have to DO something (which is why it is a shame that the FL gov has a certain last name). I am concerned that Obama is the once every 40-plus years exception. Interestingly, Kennedy had eight years as Senator when he was elected Prez (first elected in 1952, and I assume, though the Wiki does not say, that he ran in 1958 and was re-elected).
There is no one in the GOP top tier objectively as light as Obama is on political and life experience:
- Rudy (9/11, brought NYC crime under control; people were openly worried that NYC was too difficult to handle before he came along)
- Romney (directed successful post-terror Winter Olympics)
- Newt (light but more than the Big O, IMO)
- McCain (POW)
Newt is IMO by far the weakest of the four on the life side. There are about 15 others that I will not bother with, except to say that Tancredo could score a bipartisan or third-party coup on illegal immigration, because both parties are doing the la-la-la number on it, and both Dems and Reps are sick and tired of the do-nothing posture.
Comment by TBlumer — December 23, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Makes sense. Have you seen All the Kings Men yet? Talk about someone with little experience and where they go. But I can’t remember - I thought/think it’s based on a real LA person??
Comment by Jill — December 23, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
No, I haven’t. Just saw the 2006 trailer and looked at the Wiki for the 1949 original movie. I would think it’s meant to approximate Huey Long. Louisiana politics, incompetence, and corruption is collectively in a league of its own compared to the other states, as we all learned last year.
Comment by TBlumer — December 23, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
That’s what I thought - Huey Long too. And then I kept thinking, nah - the Long Building namesake? But then I couldn’t remember if that would make sense -not unless Huey was in the Congress - and I haven’t wiki’d him. Getting my Longs mixed up.
Comment by Jill — December 23, 2006 @ 10:00 pm