An interesting Obama Theory

[sirs]

Winning by Losing

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 27, 2006

When, just a week ago, Barack Obama showed a bit of ankle and declared the mere possibility of his running for the presidency, the chattering classes swooned. Now that every columnist in the country has given him advice, here's mine: He should run in '08. He will lose in '08. And the loss will put him irrevocably on a path to the presidency.

Obama's political challenge is to turn his current fame and sizzle, which will undoubtedly dissipate, into something concrete. In physics, it's the problem of converting kinetic energy into potential energy: Use the rocket fuel behind his current popularity to propel him to a higher national plane from which he would eventually move almost laterally to the presidency

First, at a time of ideological weariness, he has the persona: an affecting personal history, fine intelligence, remarkable articulateness and refreshing charm.

Second, this is a uniquely open race. Not since 1952 has there been a presidential election with no incumbent president or vice president running. Right now there is no serious challenger to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The Democrats' quadrennial great white hope -- the young, attractive Southern governor in the mode of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- was going to be Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia. Warner has bowed out.

Third, the country hungers for a black president. Not all of the country, but enough that, on balance, race would be an asset. It is no accident that when, a decade ago, another attractive, articulate African American with no experience in electoral office went on a book tour, he was met not just with rock star adulation but with a loud national chorus urging him to run for the presidency.

The object of affection then was Colin Powell. Today it is Obama. Race is only one element in their popularity, but an important one. A historic one. Like many Americans, I long to see an African American ascend to the presidency. It would be an event of profound significance, a great milestone in the unfolding story of African Americans achieving their rightful, long-delayed place in American life.

Of course there is racism in America. Call me naive, but I believe that just as Joe Lieberman was a net positive for the Democrats in 2000 -- more people were attracted to him as a man of faith than were turned away because of anti-Semitism -- there are more Americans who would take special pride in a black president than there are those who would reject one because of racism.

These are strong reasons for Obama to run. Nonetheless, he will not win. The reason is Sept. 11, 2001. The country will simply not elect a novice in wartime.

During our last great war, the Cold War, no foreign policy novice won the presidency, except for Carter in the anomalous Watergate election of 1976. The only foreign policy novices elected in the past half-century -- Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- won the presidency during our holiday from history between the fall of the Soviet Union and Sept. 11.

In any circumstance, it is fairly audacious for any freshman senator to even think of the presidency. When freshman Sen. John F. Kennedy began his preparation for 1956, he was really seeking the vice presidency. And, unlike Obama, he had already served three terms in the House, which in turn had followed a celebrated military tour in the Pacific in World War II.

In 1956 Kennedy was preparing for a serious presidential run in 1960. Obama should be thinking ahead as well -- using '08 to cure his problem of inexperience. Run for the Democratic nomination and lose. He only has to do reasonably well in the primaries to become such a compelling national figure as to be invited onto the ticket as vice presidential nominee. If John Edwards, the runner-up in '04 did well enough to be made running mate, a moderately successful Obama would be the natural choice for '08.

Then, if the Democrats win, he will have all the foreign policy credentials he needs for life. Even if the ticket loses, assuming he acquits himself reasonably well, he immediately becomes the presumptive front-runner in the next presidential cycle. And if by some miracle he hits the lottery and wins in '08, well, then it is win-win-win.

He's a young man with a future. But the future recedes. He needs to run now. And lose. And win by losing.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601253.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(sirs; of course my query is "What makes Barack any different than any other hard core liberal Democrat?".  From an ideological and voting record standpoint, he's no different than Schumer, than Clinton, than Kennedy, than Reid, etc.)

[BT]

(sirs; of course my query is "What makes Barack any different than any other hard core liberal Democrat?".  From an ideological and voting record standpoint, he's no different than Schumer, than Clinton, than Kennedy, than Reid, etc.)

I don't know if that is true.

Perception-wise he seems to be closer to Harold Ford than he does Kennedy or Schumer.

Brass has ponted out to me that the Kossacks are starting to get pragmatic, they are ok with a Ford in the Senate even though he is more centrist than their liking. And i guess that is their ideological cross to bear.

Politics is all about the spectrum.

Highlight the extremes and work to the middle. In an election between a Barak and a Buchanan i might very well go for the guy closer to the middle, and that would be Obama. Because that would serve my own self interests.

And that is the way i vote.

[sirs]

(sirs; of course my query is "What makes Barack any different than any other hard core liberal Democrat?".  From an ideological and voting record standpoint, he's no different than Schumer, than Clinton, than Kennedy, than Reid, etc.)

I don't know if that is true.   Perception-wise he seems to be closer to Harold Ford than he does Kennedy or Schumer.   Politics is all about the spectrum.  Highlight the extremes and work to the middle. In an election between a Barak and a Buchanan i might very well go for the guy closer to the middle, and that would be Obama. Because that would serve my own self interests.  And that is the way i vote.

I think that's the crux, perception.  To garner the post potnetial votes on the national scene, most political agendas would be to make yourself appear as a centrist, have the populace perceive you as a moderate, regardless of party.  The way I vote personally, is to look at a person's voting record, more than their rhetoric.  A politiican can and does say anything to try and get elected.  Their actions, and especially voting record will to me, provide much more clarity as to their ideology, and what we can expect from them potentially.  That being the case, the little research I've come across is that Barack is no different than Hillary, than Schumer, than Kennedy, than Reid, etc.

[BT]

That being the case, the little research I've come across is that Barack is no different than Hillary, than Schumer, than Kennedy, than Reid, etc.

I've learned a couple of truths since i have been in office.

One of them is that it is easier to effect compromise if you agree to vote for the law once the compromises are included. In our situation there are 7 votes. Of those 7, 5 usually vote the same way. It takes 4 to pass an ordinance. I can usually convince 3 or 4 of the 5 that my amendments will serve the public better than the raw version of the law. And in that way change is affected and not always along caucus lines.

I'm not defending Barack by any means. But i do know he is smart enough to count votes. And i know it doesn't  hurt him one bit with his caucus if he votes with them on an issue in which he knows his side is in the minority and which to him might be more extreme than he would wish it to be if he had his druthers.

In my case, i might vote for a more stringent tree ordinance than i think is necessary, in order to collect the vote i need to pass my irrigation meters program that i know is necessary. I might vote for a sign ordinance that is more restrictive than it should be in order to get that water rate hike i know damn well is necessary to pay for waterline infrastructure that is crumbling now because previous councils went the cheap route and postponed the pain for future generations.

Thats just the way it is.

An examination of my votes might show me to be a greenie but that isn't the case at all, at least to the extremes that label might imply.

I'm just being pragmatic.

And trading in the currency of the realm.

[sirs]

I'm not defending Barack by any means. But i do know he is smart enough to count votes. And i know it doesn't  hurt him one bit with his caucus if he votes with them on an issue in which he knows his side is in the minority and which to him might be more extreme than he would wish it to be if he had his druthers.

I appreciate the honest political perspective Bt.  My position (and crux of my query) would be how does one devine how a politican's potential and legislative direction, be determined, as I consider him as a candidate?  I understand compromise, & I understand playing to one's constituency.  My question is where is this "compromise" from Obama, that would lead anyone to perceive him as a centrist, a moderate, a Harold Ford vs a Ted Kennedy? 

[BT]

I appreciate the honest political perspective Bt.  My position (and crux of my query) would be how does one devine how a politician's potential and legislative direction, be determined, as I consider him as a candidate?

My suggestion would be to look at the body of his work. What was he like in the Illinois legislature. Is he just a black candidate or a candidate worthy of consideration regardless of his color. What in his writings and speeches will give you a more rounded vision than a simple examination of his voting record. ( the comments by Krauthammer about America hungering for a black president bothered me, in that it reflects more about the potential voters guilt than it does the content of the candidates characterand that should matter more than melanin content)

It is easily possible for a democrat to be more conservative than a republican. Would you be more likely to vote for Zell Miller or Lincoln Chaffee? I would. Even if it cost the GOP the Senate.

[sirs]

My suggestion would be to look at the body of his work. What was he like in the Illinois legislature. Is he just a black candidate or a candidate worthy of consideration regardless of his color

For me, as a Conservative, his color means nothing.  For me as a Conservative, his record as a politician, what he supports, and how he has voted tell me everything.  I heard a great speech he gave at the Dem Convention, desiring a country of 1, no color barriers, reminding folks of the great MLK.  And yet, you have that rhetoric, and it makes no correlation with his voting.  He appears to seek Universal Healthcare.  He appears to be against every one of the Government's efforts to deal with the terrorist threat, such as the datamining & the Foreign phone surveillance program.  He seems to be against every one of the Bush tax rate cuts.  He warned the NAACP before Bush spoke to them, not to listen or believe him.  He facilitated the notion on Oprah just recently that the war in Iraq was indeed Bush lying us into war.  I'm looking and I can't find anything that seperates him from the other hard core liberal Democrats I've already alluded to, outside of a great speech one time

It is easily possible for a democrat to be more conservative than a republican. Would you be more likely to vote for Zell Miller or Lincoln Chaffee? I would. Even if it cost the GOP the Senate

Absolutely.  I put much more credence on the Conservative aspect vs the Party aspect.  In the CA recall election a couple years back, I voted for McClintock vs Arnold.  I knew Arnold was largely a RINO, and knew McClintock likely didn't have enough votes to win.  Although Arnold did make a valid effort in reforming this state, not enough resources or his bully pulpit were used to get any of those reform propositions of his passed.  And having failed that, he's becoming just what I thought he would

[BT]

Then you have this:

Recently, the Democratic Party's rising "progressive" star Barack Obama said he would favor "surgical" missile strikes against Iran.

As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"

He added, "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."


http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521

[BT]

And this:

The Democrats' New Liberal Star
By ERIC RUDER

Among liberals, Barack Obama's sudden emergence as a star of the Democratic Party is cause for jubilation. Obama--an African American Illinois state senator from Chicago's South Side, with a progressive voting record--was selected as the keynote speaker of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, catapulting him from relative obscurity to the center of a national media frenzy.

Even before he gave his speech, the convention was abuzz with Obama's name, and a variety of pundits and Democratic Party insiders had anointed him "the future of the party"--even throwing his name around as a probable vice presidential or presidential nominee in years to come.

Part of his appeal is that Obama is a sure bet to replace Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) in November, moving the Democrats one seat closer to taking away the Repulicans' razor-thin majority.

Obama's leap to the Senate, where he'll become only the third Black senator since Reconstruction, was facilitated by the disastrous campaigns of his leading opponents in both the Democratic primary and the general election. Ironically, both collapsed after stories about their messy divorces grew into full-fledged scandals. With three months to go before the general election, the Republicans still haven't found a replacement to run against Obama.

For those hoping for an alternative to Bush's war on the world, Obama's rise has raised many hopes. In 2002, Obama spoke at an antiwar rally in Chicago, and as the convention neared, he reiterated his view that the U.S. war on Iraq was a defining campaign issue.

Nevertheless, his performance before and at the convention confirmed that even the party's new liberal star would fail to oppose the U.S. occupation of Iraq in any meaningful way.

Like Kerry, he only quibbled over the hows. The day before his speech, Obama told reporters, "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago." He added, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."

The speech itself took Bush to task for lying about the reasons for war and for invading and occupying "without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world." In other words, Obama, the great liberal hope, thinks that Bush should have sent more troops--and that the Democrats are more capable of seeing the war on Iraq through to victory.

Obama is a gifted politician. Like Bill Clinton, he knows how to encourage people of opposite political beliefs to see what they want to see in his speeches and policy prescriptions. Thus, even Rich Lowry, a right-wing booster of the Bush gang, praised Obama's speech for its "hawkish attitude," its "rallying cry of unity" and its "authentic, unashamed" embrace of "an awesome God."

This method carries through on other issues. Obama finds a way to talk left--but makes it clear that he will never pose a threat to corporate interests or make a policy proposal that would carry a hefty price tag.

In Illinois, where it's obvious that the death penalty system is too flawed to fix, Obama is celebrated by liberals as a crusader for death penalty reform--but he continues to support capital punishment for "punishing the most heinous crimes."

Obama calls for tax breaks for American workers and government measures to create jobs. But he's a supporter of Corporate America's "free trade" agenda, and his convention speech praised Kerry because "instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he'll offer them to companies creating jobs here at home."

Obama claims to be a defender of the public school system who will campaign to put more teachers in classrooms. But he also trumpets charter schools--with their record of union-busting and siphoning funds from public schools.

In his convention speech, Obama didn't make the case for Democrats fighting for new government programs for poor and working people--or even defending existing ones. Instead, he echoed conservative themes attacking big government--but with a seductive liberal wrapper.

"[People] don't expect government to solve all their problems," Obama said. "They know they have to work hard to get ahead, and they want to. Go into the [suburban] collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn."

No wonder Democratic Party officials are thrilled about Obama. With his liberal credentials and ability to appeal to a range of audiences, he can sell the kind of victim-blaming rhetoric and conservative policy proposals that establishment Democrats can't.

Eric Ruder writes for the Socialist Worker.

[sirs]

I'm sorry Bt, but when this "progressive" Democrat goes on national TV, and repeats the mantra that Bush lied us into war, doesn't cut it for me as being anything but status quo.  It's one thing to disagree with Bush, believed we weren't fully prepared when we went into Iraq, weren't organized enough, or even that we should be there in the 1st place.  It's quite another that despite overwhelming evidence and common sense to the contrary, opine that Bush lied us into war.  That kind of reasoning is left to the hard core left, of which Obama's voting record also seems to coincide with.

Sure he's dynamic, articulate, and well rounded politician.  Liberal Democrats, especially the hard core liberal base should be jumping up & down in joy.  Be it Hillary or Barack, they have a win win scenario in who ultimately will be the Democratic candidate in '08

[Plane]

"Third, the country hungers for a black president. Not all of the country, but enough that, on balance, race would be an asset. It is no accident that when, a decade ago, another attractive, articulate African American with no experience in electoral office went on a book tour, he was met not just with rock star adulation but with a loud national chorus urging him to run for the presidency."


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


  I think this is an unprovable opinion , I agree with it.

  All other things are never equal , but if there were somehow identical twins running for President and one of them was black it would be a big advantage. There is a felt shame left over from five generations ago when it was a matter of fratricidal war and from our elementary educations where we first learned of the incredible inequity .

    Placeing a president ought to be first and foremost a search for good leadership , but a big sedcondary use of the office is to give honor , and to give this honor to a Black person would go a long way to releif from this guilt.

[sirs]