However things shake out for the Dems tonight -- and we're hearing here in Texas that this is going to be a long night -- this past week has revealed some pretty significant weaknesses for Barack Obama. If he manages to get the Democratic nomination, as I believe he will, he's going to have to toughen his backside before the general election.
On the Tony Rezko trial in Chicago, there may be no substantive stink rubbing off on Obama. But his involvement with the sleazy fixer tarnishes his Mr. Clean image. And then there's the Nafta thing, in which an Obama policy adviser appears to have told the Canadians sub rosa not to pay attention to Obama's huffing and puffing against Nafta, he's just politicking. Aside from making Obama look cynical, it shows that he'll talk a good game against Nafta for the sake of appealing to key Democratic constituencies, but deep down, he's as sold out to corporatist interests as anybody else.
When confronted by these stories, Obama choked in the response. As Jim Geraghty on NRO pointed out, Obama answered a grand total of eight questions about the flap before walking away from reporters; McCain, when hit with the NYTimes story about his alleged affair with a lobbyist, stood there and answered 36.
And then there's Hillary's "3 a.m." ad, which speaks to concerns that Obama is untested in a crisis. And then, looming in the future, is the Jeremiah Wright stuff.
Look, I think Obama has it within him to deal with all this, but he didn't show in the past week much more than a glass jaw. The news of the past week, and his reaction to it, went a long way toward vindicating Hillary's critique of Obama: that he's an unknown quantity who is not experienced enough for the rigors of campaigning against the Republicans, or of the White House.
CNN just called Ohio for Hillary. If I were laying money on the eventual outcome of the Democratic contest, I'd give it to Obama. But I'm a lot less certain of that than I was at this time last week. I think the Clinton campaign has finally found an Obama weakness it can exploit.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
We need to keep in mind that Limbaugh and Hewitt have been encouraging their listeners to go to the D caucuses and vote for Hillary. Obama is being sabotaged.
Barack Obama has, at present count, three skeletons in his closet, any one of which would raise suspicions in the minds of moderate voters that Obama is not something other than the uniter-not-a-divider that he wishes to seem, and which, taken together, reveal him to be, most likely, a very conventional "Old Democrat" left-liberal instead -- indeed an embodiment of many of the things that give moderates pause about the Democratic Party, the left, and liberals, more generally.
Skeleton#1: Jeremiah Wright. Obama claims to be beyond racial partisanship, but he learned "the audacity of hope" from someone whom it's fair to describe as a kinder, gentler Louis Farrakhan.
Skeleton #2: William Ayers. Obama claims to be beyond the rancor and the radicalism of the 1960's, but he has kept company with an unrepentant member of a terrorist group which engaged in violent sedition against its own country in a time of war.
Skeleton #3: Antoin Rezko. Obama claims be be above the ethical muck of the political machine, but he bought his own backyard from a seedy backroom bagman whom one wouldn't be surprised to see on *The Untouchables* or in an old film noir.
I was at home last night chanting "Hillary, Hillary, Hillary." Seriously, I think she is by far the best candidate for President, with McCain a close second. She does have huge negatives, of course.
But I was thinking last night that what she and McCain have in common, other than the fact (IMO) that they are both adults, is that they are both lousy at being somebody that they are not. When Hillary is herself, I find she has a geeky charm. Whereas, Barack Obama is a blank screen that many people are projecting their hopes and wishes on...
Rod, I really, really hope you read Glenn Greenwald today. He touches on the kind of 'sleeze' you're discussing.
What I've always been unable to understand (really, I'm not kidding), is why the sleeze factor seems to be so important to those on the right. It's as though guilt-by-association and innuendo is automatically accepted as important to the discussion -- on a public level...anything can be important for a given individual.
George Lakoff's writings point to a differing concepts of essence (aka 'character') between the left and right.
FWIW, this whole discussion is making me consider the thought that Clinton WOULD be the better candidate (more likely to win) simply because the public believes it knows her well enough (pro or con) that she would be able to focus more on issues than addressing arguments that in the genre of 'where there's smoke there's fire'.
You do have me reconsidering, though.
Rod:
I realize politics ain't beanbag.
But if you read the unguarded comments of a Karl Rove or especially the late Lee Atwater on their scorched earth policy on campaigns, they are not only prejudiced but often borderline-criminal.
(Obviously, Nixon's CREEP went above and beyond "borderline" ...)
One might even say they were/are ... oh, wait, let me think of the word ... almost but not quite "beanbag" ... how 'bout:
"Dirtbags."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.