Saturday, April 19, 2008

Obama, the latter-day (Pink) Humpty-Dumpty?

When David Brooks is writing stuff like this in the New York Times... then yes, it is safe to assume that things are getting very, very uncomfortable on the Democrat side of the equation--with no end in sight:
Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s windsurfing or John Edwards’s haircut as clues about shared values.

When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.

Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.

General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I’ve asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that’s going to be hard.

A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.

And by the way, the fact that Obama is complaining so loudly that a news organization would actually have the gall and the nerve to stop lobbing him softballs--as they have been for over a year now--is ironic to say the least.

The media has been in the tank for Obama since the very beginning and so suddenly he feels like that a (supposedly) "independent" media is actually asking him questions that people want answers to? My heart bleeds for him...

If Barack has this much trouble giving coherent answers to highly legitimate questions about his VERY checkered past, how in the world is Obama supposed to handle a nuclear crisis putting the US in imminent danger from the Oval Office? Good grief, Barack: grow a pair. Hillary's just an ambitious former First Lady and she has bigger cojones than you do. (which isn't saying a lot...)

This is the most unprepared, most ideologically dangerous candidate in US History, and we have had plenty of bad candidates. Obama's Capital Gains response last night still has to be one of the stupidest--and most revealing--answers ever given in a televised debate. Yes, he understands that Capital Gains reductions raises more revenue for the Government---but that's not the point; it is just so...."unfair" to have businesses making profits, even if it means the Government gets more money: more investments and profits means businesses can hire more workers and distribute dividends to our 401K's.

It is so utterly obvious that Obama does not care about how much revenue Government does or doesn't raise: the point is to punish business and the middle class, no matter what it does to revenue; revenue is just the convenient excuse. Last night the whole country saw Obama for what he really is. Obama's only focus is to punish investors and businesses, so that these workers will need government handouts and subsidies to bail them out. Heaven forbid if businesses and Investors began to accumulate wealth on their own, they won't need bloated, inefficient government handouts to thrive.

There is only one other explanation for Barack's answer: his primary objective is to take more of your money, no matter what it does to federal revenue, because fiduciary responsibility is not what Obama is about. The less money the population has (especially the productive population), then the less POWER we have over our government or our lives. Taking money out of the economy to subsidize low productivity special interests like Big Labor is Marx/Engels 101. In this thinker, business is the enemy. And the weaker that business becomes, the more able the Marxists are to nationalize one industry after another (which is exactly what subsidies are--a way to make entire industries dependent on Central Government for their very lifeblood...).

Barack Obama is a Communist. This is not hyperbole; this is a fact. He told you: he admitted that federal revenue is secondary for him as a reason for raising taxes. 'Someone out there is successful?? Well then we mush punish them...' that Obama's bottom line.

The beauty of last night's debate is that the rest of the country knows this, and also knows that Obama has spent his entire adult life hanging out with known Communists, anarchists, terrorists, racists, and crooks.

And yet the media is not supposed to ask about these associations, Barack?? Welcome to the Majors, kid. And quit sucking your thumb...

Last night Obama could not hide from the American people who he really is. "Fairness" my ass: what we have here is the 2008 incarnation of Eugene Debs; and if you ask me, I prefer the message in the original Russian (or technically, German I guess... not that half of Obama's constituents have enough of a clue to understand what he is actually admitting to anyway...). But I think enough Centrist Democrats did understand it that it is going to be a real problem for him. And I know enough Republicans did...

Life is good.

No comments: