FAQ – Barack Obama
1.) So you have decided to shamelessly rip off Dean Barnett’s FAQ format for this post, heh?
What can I say? I am a big fan of Barnett and have wanted to give this a shot for some time. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
2.) So to the topic at hand The title of this post is #quot;Don’t Fear Obama#quot;. Do you believe that Republicans are afraid of Barack Obama running for president?
No. At least not yet anyways. Whether that remains the case in a year after the MSM has painted him as the most dangerous presidential candidate of the past 50 years remains to be seen. The title of this post is meant to implore my fellow Republicans to remain calm in the face of the incessant stoking of Obamamania by the MSM over the next year.
3.) You referred to the MSM’s role in all of this twice in your last answer. Do you believe that the MSM is responsible for the creation of Barack Obama as a leading presidential candidate?
Certainly. The whispers of Obama running for President began the second he left the podium after giving his memorable speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. This was when is was still a state legislator running for U.S. Senate. Obama being singled out as the future of the Democratic Party from the moment he exited stage right at the DNC could only have been accomplished with the constant positive press coverage he has received by the MSM. This is a perfect example of the MSM creating reality out of whole cloth simply because they can. The libs in the MSM want Obama to be at center stage in American politics, so they made it so.
4.) But isn’t Obama one of the most popular politicians in America?
I don’t know how that conclusion can be drawn at this stage of the game, considering that nearly 50% of Americans don’t know who Barack Obama is. If Obama has a approval rating of say 50% in a poll where nearly 50% of respondents don’t know who he is, that tells me that Obama is probably fairly popular among the Democrats who were polled.
5.) But I thought that one of the main strengths of Sen. Obama was his ability to win over moderates & independents?
Once again, this is what the MSM would have you believe. However, I have yet to see a single shred of empirical evidence to support this. What does 1,300 Democrats showing up to hear Obama speak at a Democratic barbecue fundraiser have to do with winning over moderates and independents? I will concede right now that Obama is quite popular among Democrats.
Obama certainly has mastered the language and manner of a moderate Democrat. Whether he is able to maintain that image when the general public finds out more about him remains to be seen.
6.) What do you mean by #quot;when the general public finds out more about him#quot;? Are there skeletons in Senator Obama’s closet?
Well, if you consider being a liberal in the mold of John Kerry, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis a skeleton, then yes I suppose there are.
Whether it’s his opposition to a law that would prevent babies that were born alive from being killed in Illinois hospitals, to speeches on #quot;economic justice#quot; that would make William Jennings Bryan blush (the video of which has been subsequently pulled from his website since the onset of Obamania), there is a lot that Americans will find out about regarding the real record of Barack Obama’s short time in electoral politics.
7.) But doesn’t Obama’s experience in politics roughly equate to JFK’s experience at the time of his election?
Their records are somewhat similar if you equate JFK’s six-years as a U.S. Congressman to Obama’s six-years as an Illinois state legislator, and Kennedy’s eight-years in the Senate to Obama’s 4 years I suppose. But I would submit that comparing JFK’s 1960 presidential run to a potential Obama one reveals a complete ignorance of the 1960 presidential race.
JFK ran to the right of a unpopular incumbent Vice-President in Richard Nixon (Eisenhower famously told the press that he couldn’t think of a single important policy or decision that Nixon had been a part of in eight years!) and was a highly decorated, genuine war hero.
JFK hammered away at a supposed #quot;missile gap#quot; that existed between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Kennedy also had developed a reputation for splitting with his party over important matters while in Congress. Can you imagine Barack Obama running to the right of the GOP nominee on any issue?
Unlike JFK, Obama will likely not face an unpopular incumbent who has no significant accomplishments under his belt at the time of nomination. His opponent will likely be be either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani who have similar stratospheric approval ratings with the American public while being nearly universally known.
8.) But like JFK, doesn’t Obama have a #quot;great story to tell?#quot;
If you consider the drug-riddled teenage travails of a spoiled rich kid to be a #quot;great story#quot; then yes, he certainly does.
9.) What do you mean by #quot;rich kid#quot;? Didn’t Obama have to #quot;pull himself up by his bootstraps#quot; to make it?
Absolutely not. His father is a member of Kenya’s elite caste (he holds a Ph.D and has been employed as a university professor for many years).
After his parent’s divorce, his grandparents ensured that he attended only the best schools; whether that be the prestigious private Punahou School in Hawaii during his formative years, or Columbia and Harvard in his collegiate years.
The contrast between Obama’s background and that of say, Condoleezza Rice (whose parent’s had to do their best for their child while her classmates where being killed in fire bombings) could not be more profound. Rudy Giuliani’s upbringing was certainly more modest than Obama’s.
10.) So what is it about Obama that you think appeals so strongly to Democrats & the MSM?
Well, I think that it is a combination of a many things actually.
First of all, I believe that there is high anxiety among Democrats regarding Hillary Clinton’s viability in a general election. Ironically, I personally believe her to be the strongest candidate out of their currently crop. Hillary will be able to break the Red State/Blue State stalemate by putting several states that President Bush won in play.
If the latest polling is to be believed, Clinton has to be favored in Arkansas, and has at least a 50/50 chance to flip Florida and Missouri. Those three states get her to 295 in the electoral college (270 is needed to win).
I am far less concerned about a liberal Senator from a deep blue state with a grand total of 4 years of experience and no history of executive leadership. It has been said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. The Democrats nominating a green Senator from a liberal state with little chance of flipping Red States would fit this definition.
Obama’s charisma is undeniable, and no doubt the thought of someone so eloquent and so obviously brilliant at the helm of their party (as well as the country) has great appeal to those that are hungry to retake the White House.
11.) But won’t Obama’s deep personal faith help him reach out to Red State Voters?
It will probably help as much as John Kerry’s deep personal faith helped him with these voters (remember Kerry said that his faith caused him to personally oppose abortion, while he voted in lock-step with the abortion lobby.)
When the time comes, I’m sure that there will be plenty of groups that will remind socially conservative voters that when the time came to choose, State Senator Obama chose to stand with NARAL, not Jesus Christ.
12.) So are you really saying that Barack Obama will be easily defeated?
Of course not. Two-years is an awfully long time. If Iraq is still going as poorly then as it is now, you would have to like the chances of almost any reasonable Dem (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson).
What I am saying is that perhaps no candidate would do more to perpetuate the Red State/Blue State template on the Dem side as Obama, and this greatly benefits the GOP.
13.) What about the other factors you haven’t addressed? Obama’s African-American Heritage, and his middle name?
I’m really not sure what affect his race will have in the general election. I am sure that every partisan wishes that the first African-American to be elected president will be from their own party. I do believe that most moderates/independents will take a long look at both candidates and make a decision based upon the individual merits of both contenders.
As far as the name goes (Barack Hussein Obama), I would strongly counsel my fellow Republicans to leave this one alone. Even having it be brought up solely by proxy can only serve to make conservatives appear petty to many potential voters (remember what #quot;macaca#quot; did for George Allen.)
My name is Kavon Nikrad, which in Iranian (Farsi to be correct) translates to #quot;Saturn Goodway#quot; (or so my father tells me). Throughout my life, I have been given strange looks when either: a.) someone directly asks me my name; or b.) what I actually look like doesn’t match up with the idea of what I should like in the mind of someone who I am meeting for the first time.
The strangeness of my name is usually only a factor for the first 30 seconds of meeting someone new. After that, the person gets to know me and I am only #quot;Kavon#quot;.
The American Public will have plenty of time to get to know Barack Obama on the merits of his character. His name will not be a deciding factor for any rational voter by the time the campaign is over and it’s time to vote.
14.) So what would you recommend Sen. Obama and his supporters do if they want him to end up in the White House?
I don’t usually make it a habit of giving out advice to Democrats, but here goes??
If Sen. Obama wants to become President Obama, he should take a more traditional route to get there. He is only 45 years-old, so he certainly has time to do this the right way. And the right way is to gain executive experience.
Illinois current Democratic governor’s term expires in 2010. He almost certainly will not seek another term. Obama could walk into the Governor’s Mansion if he wishes it. He could then take his shot in 2012 or 2016 with a far better resume. He would be 51 & 55 years-old at the time of those elections.
Disagree with my assessment? Fire away in the comments!
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Excellent job, Kavon. I did a post on my blog recently on Obama’s opposition to the born-alive act if anybody wants to come and take a look.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Thanks Peter. I wasn’t sure if the whole Dean Barnett “FAQ” format would go over well.
You’re right about the Born Alive Act. It’s this kind of thing that the average person (heck even the majority of political junkies like myself) don’t know about Obama yet.
They soon will however.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Really interesting article. I have to admit up front I’m an Obama supporter. I agree with much of what you say regarding correct republican strategy. I do disagree that he’s a spoiled rich kid (he just finished paying off his student loans, after all) and that he will put less states into play than anyone else in the democratic party. I think he could easily energize several million voters who don’t normally vote, both african-american and youth, and this could easily put states like FL, IA, and CO over the top, not to mention OH where the republicans just got drilled. Almost everyone I know in their twenties who normally doesn’t care about politics knows who he is and is excited about him running, probably because his directness and pragmatism is very gen-x in style.
He also does an exceptionally good job sounding moderate while voting a fairly standard liberal line. He already had more than a 20 point lead in the Illinois senate race before his opponent imploded and was replaced by the laughable Alan Keyes, which suggests to me he has at least some independent appeal. Edwards is more moderate as far as past voting record but seems to be trying to take the populist/Dean approach and run to the left of Hillary and Obama. Hillary’s negatives are dangerously close to 50% and everyone has already made up their minds about her. Richardson has foot-in-the-mouth disease.
In a general, the only top-tier republican who can really make an issue of experience is McCain. At 74, and with the troop surge he advocates a potential albatross around his neck, I don’t know how much he can make an issue out of experience. Giuliani hasn’t had any federal experience; I believe his messy social life and liberal social positions doom him in the primaries anyway. Everyone else on the republican bench is an inexperienced governor (Huckabee, Romney), way too far right (Brownback) or has ridiculously high negatives (Gingrich).
Anyway, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Huckabee actually will leave his term this month after serving as Governor of Arkansas for ten years opposed to Obama having been a Senator for two. I think the term “inexperienced” is being put on the wrong person here.
“He also does an exceptionally good job sounding moderate while voting a fairly standard liberal line.”
More like a fairly extreme Liberal line. This is a man who was opposed to letting born alive babies from botched abortions live when they could survive if given standard care. Do you honestly think that a candidate with this position could win Iowa, Colorado, or Ohio, which Kerry lost?
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
“More like a fairly extreme Liberal line. This is a man who was opposed to letting born alive babies from botched abortions live when they could survive if given standard care. Do you honestly think that a candidate with this position could win Iowa, Colorado, or Ohio, which Kerry lost?”
Sure, he’s not going to woo a lot of base republicans; they can tell how liberal he is. I think the contention is instead that the social issues/terrorism wedge approach is no longer a winning strategy as of 2006/08 or at least is on the back burner until Iraq (and a meaningful response to the societal changes produced by globalization?) plays itself out. OH elected Sherrod Brown, a strongly liberal and relatively undistinguished democrat (with a 100% rating from NARAL) against moderate republican incumbent Dewine by a very large margin. One of IA’s senators is Tom Harkin, who also has a 100% rating from NARAL. There was no race in CO this year, but it’s trending blue and has a strong libertarian streak, as does MT.
It will be very hard to stick Obama on that one vote enough to sink him in the eyes of most independents. He will respond as he does in his book, by raising the spectre of back-alley abortions and agreeing that abortion is a tragedy and that we need to revalue sexuality and provide more support for the kind of mothers likely to have an abortion (see also: his speech in Rick Warren’s church). Finally, if this is an issue that sinks Obama it also sinks Clinton and Edwards, who opposed banning partial-birth abortion.
“Huckabee actually will leave his term this month after serving as Governor of Arkansas for ten years opposed to Obama having been a Senator for two. I think the term “inexperienced†is being put on the wrong person here.”
All I’m saying is that I don’t think that people are going to view Huckabee’s experience as a major advantage over Obama’s, especially considering Obama’s trips to the asia, the middle east and africa (and I’m sure he’ll take more highly publicized trips this year). Obama can also add a moderate a longer record like Bayh to the bottom of his ticket to increase its gravity, similar to Bush’s addition of Cheney.
Inexperience isn’t a handicap for Huckabee, but I simply don’t see him making it a major issue in the general. Apparently he’s known as a good thinker on education and health care, like Romney; mix good republican market-driven responses to those issues in with social issues and a recommitment to fiscal conservatism and it’s a tempting ticket (heck, I lean libertarian enough to be tempted by it) with a good chance to win. However, I think that returning to Rovian wedge politics or trying to argue that a few extra years as a governor amounts to far greater qualifications to handle foreign affairs is going to be a loser.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
But how can YOU support (or expect him to keep you and the country safe as President,) someone who believes in letting living, breathing, babies die? As for experience, it doesn’t matter how small the state is. Ten years of executive experience is ten years of executive experience, (plus the fact that Huckabee also served in the AR Senate which gives him legislative experience, also.) of which Obama who has served in the IL and US senate has none of. (The experience thing really wouldn’t matter to me if I agreed with Obama on the issues, but, alas, I don’t.)
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Well… the Democratic Party has been waiting for the “youth vote” to put them over the top since Eugene McCarthy, so I personally wouldn’t depend very much on that segment of the electorate (John Kerry was suppose to electrify the youth vote in 2004 remember).
I will argue though that executive experience matters a great deal in U.S. Presidential elections. Huckabee had been the governor of a state for 10 years. Romney was a very successful CEO before being a governor. Being Mayor of NYC is equivalent to being the governor of the 10th largest state in the US.
Obama just oozes likability and charisma. Will this be enough to propel him to the WH after only 4 years in the Senate (with 2 of those being spent campaigning for the office)? I’m not so sure.
BTW-Just a small correction, but McCain will be 72 in 2008, not 74.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
“(John Kerry was suppose to electrify the youth vote in 2004 remember).”
Point well taken, but trust this youth voter that an awful lot of us are enthusastic about Obama this far before an election. Kerry is not exactly an electrifying candidate; I enjoyed the site kerryhatersforkerry.com as much as the next guy.
“I will argue though that executive experience matters a great deal in U.S. Presidential elections. Huckabee had been the governor of a state for 10 years. Romney was a very successful CEO before being a governor. Being Mayor of NYC is equivalent to being the governor of the 10th largest state in the US.”
Sure, they all have significant experience. However I simply can’t see a governor, even a 10-year governor, making a selling point out of their experience given the current state of foreign affairs. It won’t be a handicap but I can’t see them successfully attacking Obama from that position.
“But how can YOU support (or expect him to keep you and the country safe as President,) someone who believes in letting living, breathing, babies die?”
Here is his response to Alan Keyes on this issue from a 2004 debate:
“Well, you know, this is apparently the entire basis on which Ambassador Keyes decided to contradict himself with respect to his views about federalism and not carpet-bagging and not running in other states. According to Ambassador Keyes, this was the reason, this bill. And unfortunately, it’s premised on a falsehood. You know, if Ambassador Keyes had called me up, he could have saved himself a trip because existing Illinois law mandates that any infant that has a chance for survival is provided life-saving treatment. Not only that, you’ve got to have a second doctor there to certify that in fact that is the case. That continues to be the case, that is current law today, as it should be.
Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade, which is why 21 other senators, Democrat and Republican, why the Illinois Medical Society objected to the bill. At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.”
Now, perhaps he’s being disingenous here. If so, I would like to know why. In the context of a general election, support for roe vs. wade is still a majority position.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“However I simply can’t see a governor, even a 10-year governor, making a selling point out of their experience given the current state of foreign affairs. It won’t be a handicap but I can’t see them successfully attacking Obama from that position.”
You can’t see how someone who has been governor of a state for 10 years could contrast his experience with Obama’s paltry 4 years in the Senate (half of which will be spent running for president)?
John, I think that your affection for Sen. Obama is clouding your judgment a little here my friend.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Iraq will be the deciding factor among the Democratic candidates in 2008, and Hillary and Edwards were both flat wrong on the subject. More and more it looks like it will be Al Gore’s election to lose, please see http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
“John, I think that your affection for Sen. Obama is clouding your judgment a little here my friend. ”
We’ll have to see
.
One more point about the democratic primaries, having seen your bet on Edwards: the most recent newspaper poll in Iowa shows that Obama has already managed to erase Edwards’ lead, which was at one point about 20 points, after a single visit.
He also erased Hillary’s lead of about 20 points in NH, now trailing by only 1%.
You have to admit he has some momentum right now.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:14 am
“More and more it looks like it will be Al Gore’s election to lose.”
If that’s the case, rest assured that Al will find a way to do so.
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:04 am
Obama’s numbers in the ARG polls of the early states don’t look so good: http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/
I think ARG’s primary poll numbers are closer to reality than their caucus poll numbers.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
What about http://independents4obama.blogspot.com
Maybe he has more ability to win over Independents than you thought?
January 16th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
[...] Wrong. by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 7:32 pm. Filed under Democrats [Trackback URL] [link] Trackback URL for this post: http://race42008.com/2007/01/16/obama-launches-exploratory-committee/trackback/ [...]
February 6th, 2007 at 4:10 am
About point number 3 I’d like to counter not nearly as much as romney.