Tuesday, June 03, 2008
|
|
Why Obama Lost
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:16 AM
|
The Washington Post's Richard Cohen can't help himself. He's already begun to construct the "why Obama lost" narrative. Of course it is because of racism, even though Cohen admits:
I acknowledge that some people can find nonracial reasons to vote against Obama -- his youth, his inexperience, his uber-liberalism and, of course, his willingness to abide his minister's admiration for a racist demagogue (Louis Farrakhan) until it was way, way too late. But for too many people, Obama is first and foremost a black man and is rejected for that reason alone. This is very sad.
This is, of course, nonsense. Obama has won the nomination by running as a hard left, anti-victory tax raiser with a circle of radical advisors, mentors and friends. He will lose the general because he really is a hard-left, anti-victory tax raiser with a circle of radical advisors, mentors and friends.
|
|
|
McCain should have a good shot at the nomination, despite the damage Bush has done to the republican "brand" so to speak. But I would not write Obama off just yet. |
|
|
You have to love clowns like Dick Cohen - trying to pin the blame on race, rather than the fact that Obomber will be worse for this country than Jimmuh "I love Iran, too" Carter. Way to go, Dick! Show us how smart you are. |
|
A part of the excerpt reads as follows:
"But for too many people, Obama is first and foremost a black man and is rejected for that reason alone."
No one would object to the statement that one racist is one too many. So three or four racists voting against Obama because of his race is objectionable. All the rest oppose him for the reasons that Cohen cite.
Besides, at best (at best), the number of blacks (and whites) voting for Obama because of his race probably far exceeds those opposing him because of his race.
Cohen's simply laying the the white guilt foundation for independents. I'm a rightward leaning independent, and I wouldn't vote for Obama in a thousand years. He's an AINO--American in name only. |
|
and the motivation for cohen's comments aren't so much to label those who vote against Obama as racist, but rather to provide cover for the fact that cohen et al fell hook, line and sinker for the idea that by voting for BO they would recieve some kind of racist absolution.
In fact, it is they who are making their voting decision based on race and nothing else. Most of those who will vote for JM are voting for more mature and rational reasons than the colour of his or BO's skin. |
|
Cohen is claiming that racism is the primary reason people have voted against Obama. He cites as an example the Kentucky primary.
But since Kentucky holds a closed primary -- meaning, presumably, that it is generally limited to registered Democrats -- what Cohen is claiming is that racism is alive and well among Democratic voters. I thought it was the Republicans who were racists.
|
|
Obama will win for the same reason Carter won: the previous Republican has been such a disaster, the country is willing to gamble on an unknown.
|
|
|
Would Richard Cohen say this? -- "But for too may people, McCain is first and foremost an old man and is rejected for that reason alone. This is very sad." Both his real quote and this made-up one are absurd. Agism and Racism may enter the dialogue of this campaign, but will not be the thing that most voters will consider. In fact, I would bet that most loud mouths who shout racist or agist reasons for opposing one candidate or the other will probably not even vote. Look, liberals will make these types of phony arguments to explain away failed elections rather than face the truth: Their ideas are flawed, and their actions and statements are offensive to many Americans who vote. |
|
It gets much WORSE. Poor Richard. He's sooooooo disappointed in the human condition at campaign time.
He's sad...Sad..SAD..S A D...I tell'ya.
Why, when the archenemies, Booosh & Cheney, are so easy to hate, are American voters showing their true EeeekK racist stripes? And, Democrats, NO LESS! Those BAD Kentuckians. Why, they probably saw--many times--Rev. Wright dancing his lunatic dance at Trinity, with the shrieking agreement coming in chorus from the congregants, and thought to themselves..NOPE!
And, Richard's disappointed in Billy-Bubba Clinton because, dadgummit, he's never-ever seen this rage driven, self-absorbed, LOOK-AT-MEEEEEE side of Bubba in 16 years of public Malignant Narcissism. Richard, FOCUS: Where you been, Boyo?
For an unintended look at the Beltway Media & Dems(and, far too many Repubs, as well..)just feast on Cohen's first paragraph. Nuf said. |
|
...just make crap up?
Let's see, on what basis am I going to vote for somebody? On the color of their skin, or whether:
* They're going to raise income taxes in an economic slowdown. This slowdown and increasing food prices are tough enough for me, do I want more tax burden, too?
* Their plan for Iraq is anything more sophisticated than "Bush lied." (see http://www.nypost.com/seven/06032008/postopinion/opedcolum nists/obamas_iraq_achilles_heel_113697.htm)
* They plan to keep American strong or disarm us, both as a nation and individually;
* They hang out with terrorists, criminals and hate-spewing race-baiters;
* Their spouse is likely to be a national embarrassment (think of both Obama and Clinton)
I think somebody who would vote on the basis of skin color without taking at least the above points into consideration is pretty much an idiot.
|
|
apologist to agree with much of Cohen's thesis.
The fact is, a fairly significant number of Americans are voting against Obama now precisely because he is black. Those Americans of which I speak are Democrats, voting in their primaries. Just look at the exit polling numbers, and the black/white divide in Dem voters is obvious as the nose on anyone's face.
Anybody who has actually spent any time and developed any relationships with people in several different demographic groups would know this, even if it's not PC to talk about it. I'm not suggesting "all" members of any group vote alike, or that any person is consigned to lockstep compliance with their personal demographic profile.
But hey, let's get real here: lots of Hispanics simply won't vote for a black man today. For many, it's a cultural legacy. And for some others, it's a matter of identity group competition (one minority not caring much for another minority that competes with it for money and attention and power).
Lots of Jews likewise - particularly when the black man in question has close relationships to the anti-Jew radicals like Reverend Wright and Louis Farakhan. I've heard it "direct from the horse's mouth" on this one.
And yes, there are probably still at least a some racist whites who won't vote for a black man. But contrary to popular media perception, that's not a "Southern thang" .. there has always been plenty of anti-black racism amongst the white working class in northern cities like NY and Boston, and out in the Rocky Mountain states where relatively few blacks live.
So yeah, in an evenly-divided country where presidential elections are won or lost on the margins, often margins of less than 3%, it doesn't take much racism to doom a black candidate.
That's why Obama ran as a "post-racial candidate".
Unfortunately for Obama, his personal ties gave away that lie, so he no longer has that cover to hide behind. |
|
I have nothing against Barack Obama other than he appears completely unqualified to be President of the United States. Does that make me racist for expressing that opinion? So when conservatives say lots of nice things about Bobby Jindal, is that racist too? Give me a break.
Richard Cohen needs to pull his head out of his doughnut hole. Seriously. |
|
Cohen is so sad because Democrats are racist. Imagine that. A party that supported slavery, promoted Jim Crow, and fought the civil rights movement has a racist component.
Did you know Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican? Ever wonder why? |
|
There are plenty of reasons for people to vote for John McCain and against Barack Obama without race being any factor whatsoever.
But anyone who denies race can be a factor in this election is kidding themselves.
Race IS a factor.
I believe the good news is that race is much less of a factor than it was when I was growing up in the 1960s.
IF Barack Obama truly had been a "post racial" candidate - someone like a Colin Powell or a Condi Rice - then I think such a candidate would greatly diminish the extent of the race factor in voters' decision-making.
However, when you have ample video evidence splashed across all the cable channels and YouTube showing that your closest associates are race baiters of the highest degree, then you cannot by any serious definition be considered "post racial".
Obama is hoist by his own petard. |
|
Cohen, like many of his ilk (for broad, sweeping values of "ilk"), sees the world through a filter that requires a victim element be ascribed to everyone's behavior.
Obama is black (Not really, of course. He is equally white, but it boosts the minority political numbers and provides that useful cachet to put him and other similar mixed-race individuals in the black column.)
Blacks are the perpetual victims of racism.
Ipso facto, anyone who votes against him will do so because they are racist. This is what passes for logic on the left. Pathetic. |
|
|
If Obama was a Repub, Cohen and the other patronizing white boys would be saying the truth, Obama is not qualified to be Prez. They have no problem when Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell loses. |
|
Yes - race will be used as the excuse for Obama's failure this November. And yes, the same guys who cry a river of tears for the unfairness of it all when it comes to Obama are dead silent when a qualified black Republican runs and loses.
But race is still a factor, like it or not, or whether it is convenient to anybody's political analysis or not.
And yes, sex is a factor as well.
So are lots of other irrelevant things - like a candidate's looks, the attractiveness of the candidate's friends, the attractiveness of the candidate's spouse and kids and even siblings, and all sorts of other things that have little or nothing to do with how the candidate would perform as President.
Ideology aside, humans behave like humans - both candidates, and the voters, and as such we are all subject to venal prejudices and preferences. Let's not make too big a deal of the humanity of us all.
Let's focus on the stuff that DOES matter, and simply accept the existence and the influence of stuff that really doesn't matter. It is what it is.
|
|
looks. Ugly candidates have a harder time too.
In fact ugly probably has more effect on a candidate than race or religion (did Mitt balance loses for being LDS by his good looks?). Race is not the factor it used to be and if anything, Barack Obama is benefiting from his race. There are more folks out there willing to vote for a black candidate to show how progressive and enlightened they are than are folks who just blindly refuse to vote for anyone not white. So while race is a factor, let's try not to fall in the gutter on this one.
|
|
that humans are so...well...human! You nailed it nicely that, bottom line, the patronizing-superior, Richard, is lamenting that pesky, bothersome Truth(since the beginning of human history)that ussin's ain't anywhere near perfect.
I forgo the impulse to grind my molars when Lib-Left Elitists wring their manicured hands and sigh and express disappointment that humans are...well...HUMAN. I save the enamel on my molars and go straight to snickering bemusement.
Richard: How'd that 100 million deaths last century in the name of utopian perfectability work out, Pal. Yep, let's bring on a Chicago Ward perfecter, shall we? Far gentler & more likable, but still focused on shining our dirty, disgusting fingernails.
Me, I'm Old School. I'll take Humans. |
|
|
Mr. Cohen writes: "I acknowledge that some people can find nonracial reasons to vote against Obama -- his youth, his inexperience, his uber-liberalism and, of course, his willingness to abide his minister's admiration for a racist demagogue (Louis Farrakhan) until it was way, way too late." But then concludes that racist motivation is the reason the eeevil American voters will cast their votes. Do lefties ever stop to think...about anything? |
|
Jennifer Rubin responds to Andrew Sullivan:
Now, if [Obama] has changed his view and has come to recognize that McCain was correct in supporting the surge strategy, or even if he is open to soliciting facts that would confirm this is the case, this would be a remarkable turn of events and news to the entire country, the Democratic primary electorate in particular. No one would be happier than I to see a return to bipartisan agreement on national security starting from mutual acceptance of realities on the ground. But I just see no evidence, not a shred, that Obama has come around and reversed his views. He could clear it up right now in an interview or speech, explain the error of his ways and–with the same graciousness as Andrew–praise McCain’s foresightedness. But he hasn’t done this. So I would love to be as optimistic as Andrew, I just have no basis to be so.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/924 1
Ms. Rubin is spot on.
|
|
|
But if he doesn't, I will not blame it on race. |
|
Yeah maybe you won't, but every RACR-Baiter in the Dem party will sure say it.
(That you can be sure of)
The Dem party LIVES off of race, it's all they have. |
|
|
What if the Pubs put up a black guy who was not a radical socialist pacifist? Say like Steele, Blackwell, JC Watts, or a minority guy like Bobby Jindal? What if the agendas, platforms , and issues were those that supported free enterprise capitalism , permanent tax cuts, victory over Islamofascism, appointment of SCOTUS jurists like Scalia and Roberts, choice in education, stopping illegal immigration, repair of our domestic infrastructure? Do you think then Cohen would have to write a commentary bewailing the race of one of those guys above? Suppose the Pubs finally put up a guy who was one with color and had the right ideas that a majority of Americans could agree with those issues? Would the South vote for him? Would any Dems or would they be the racists???Obama is simply a radical socialist pacifist who looks like a combo of Wallace-Carter-McGovern and the Weathermen! In reality, no one should vote for that bum! |
|
|
Cohen is basically calling all Dems racist. Fine, whatever. |
|
For the Supreme court.
The dem's did all they could to smear him. Yes even his race.
And the best part of all. facial hair in a coke can?
sick. |
|
In The National Review?
Obama in the Oval Office,
It's 3 A.M., In....
Hillary outside..the window, looking in,
Obama: it's 3 a.m., Hillary,
.......go Home.
! |
|
Sounds great, but you got one part wrong.
(Obama WIFE: it's 3 a.m., Hillary,
.......go Home.)
LOL
! |
|
I suspect that the number of who will vote for him because he is black will cancel out those who will not vote for him because he is black.
it will be a wash and it will come down to policies, experience et al. |
|
L-Lawyer has apparently moved to your adopted state and is selling swampland in the Everglades.
The same man who wants to diss every hiccup as racist language at HH is going to be a stand up fellow when Barack is buried by McCain. I buy that, along with some nice gooey swamp property. |
|
cartoon of Barack in the O-Office at 3:00am with Bubba's florid face against the window, whining, "Look, it's me! It's meeeeeeeee! Look, oh you just have to loooook.! It's meeeeee!"
Perhaps Mike could have Obama summoning some secret service guard with,"I asked him to leave, but he just won't go!" |
|
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hk-LpSM4xcSjQ69tdQmi7bc GBCKQ
I suspect the electorate is just as mujch split along party lines as it was in 2000 and 2008. Sure, national security might be the "issue" with the swing vote, but there are real signs of GOP-weariness, and I can accordingly envision an Obama win.
Of course, Hugh's job is to spin, spin, spin, so of course we won't get an impartial analysis from him. But the intelligent money is arguably on a very close election, with a very real possibility of an Obama win. |
|
Evangelic who hate one
where she come from.
|
|
and too Mormon. A more rugged-looking, moral but lapsed Mormon would have had the nomination.
Squeaky clean and filthy rich? More of a political liability than race, I say. |
|
|
I just love the thought of it,"why Obamarama lost?" kind of like a Calgon bath bouquet.....sublimly takes me away!!!;-) |
|
...not the color of one's skin.
MLK ought to be horrified. Or is a hypocrite. |
|
|
It's racist to give Obama and his socialist beliefs and hard-Left associations, inexperience and bland naivete a pass simply because he's a charming talker and black. |
|
First of all I am not a man. Second, Here's what you need to get...not that Barack has a "bad" character. He's certainly way more decent than the Clintons. And yes, he did well at Harvard. My son the lawyer did well in a first tier law school too...as have a bunch of other kids, but nobody's electing him POTUS.
There is only ONE reason Bararck is where he is: BECAUSE of his color (not too dark/not too light). If he were a white Harvard suma c-m laude law review first year senator, we would have never heard of him.
Yes, he's a nice, school-smart kid, but no way, no how prepared to have the most important job on the planet. He's proven that over and over with empty, inane hope-n-change chant. I would not leave him in charge in my business for half a day, much less my country.
I hope you are old enough and smart enough to understand that there is nothing new in his juvenile, simplistic message. I am old enough to recall the same things said in the early 60's when the Communist Salvadore Allende gave the same message to the poor mothers of Santiago de Chile.
The Chileans eventually fell for it, but only because of their 3-party system. If you don't believe Obama doesn't have naively Marxist eanings, you were not listening to his Oprah-tour speeches.
Bring the troops home, mismantle the miliary and spend the money on growing the nanny state.
Obama and Michelle spout the same rhetoric we heard all over South America back in the early days liberation theology.
I don't even think Obama realizes what he believes. The con/lib war that was fought on college campuses in the 60's was won by the time Michelle and Barack got there. It was an easy step from anti-American academia to Southside Chicago, TUCC et al.
I don't know if MLK would be happy that the first credible candidate of color got there simply because of the color of his skin rather than a record of proven accomplishment.
|
|
Greetings, Cabal Babes!
May I just ask Comrade Bro-Bay in a nurturing, heartfelt, owning-my-feelings kinda way, a polite-sensitive question? Thank you, Ladies.
BROBBY: Have you completely LOST your Effing mind, Dude?! (*Answer to your K.G. query:"w.t.f....") Your Kid is an utterly Empty Suit. Nice guy, no doubt. Strength of character? Ya got to be ***tting us! Experience? BWHAAAAA! Friends? BWHAAAAAAAAA! Resume? BWHAAAAAAAA! Defeatist-Rereatist? YESSSSSSSSSSSS! Cluelessness beyond imagining? YESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!
Ummm, again, Thank You, Ladies of the Evil Cabal.
That Old Fuzzball,
Neo |
|
...is the phrase John Burns is just now using on HH to describe why Maliki is having such problems in Iraq.
That pretty much sums up both BHO and HRC, the two affirmative action candidates. |
|
Obama's frequent resort to false, weird analogies, and politics of Michelle victimization, her condescension, and their resonating to racial grievances, not appreciating his progressive legislative accomplishments, their remarkable talent of community organizer, etc. refusing to accept and observe his hypocritical elite preaching, all and all, will be, unfair, quite racist and downright malicious of America to reject Obama.
For now, Let Obama preaching begin... |
|
See neo above. Need I say more.
Talk to me. Or not. I'm curious about |
|
|
Amazing that the 3 speeches were so varied. John made some good points then pretended he loved everyone especially Hil and BO. Not many people there so that his good points were missed and the commentators mentioned that. Hil made a good socialist govt. I won more popular votes speech that dissed Obama and told him: pick me pal or lose the female vote. Obama had to change his speech because he praised Hil and then realized he was the nominee with her in the closet! Yipe. |
|
I heard someone who has held office previously say last night they would vote Obama simply because he was charismatic, well spoken and cool. I thought what is the world coming to.....1930's all over again.
And I do not believe the Clintons' are yet done. |
|
I truely have to hang my head in shame, first the person you mention is from Ohio, second, I am never interested in reading scurried, muttering barely coherent, childishly
concocted, fantasy.
With very best regards,
from one of the Evil Cabal Member!
P.S. Next time read the Brobpost
..before going to your Dentist! |
|
than against him - it is pretty simple - the real difference are the ones voting for him only because he is black probably would have voted Dem regardless. On the other hand, those that would have gone Rep but are drawn to him will be few and far between because he is so liberal and socialist.
The number of people that are going to vote for McCain only because Obama is black will be few.
The deciding factor will be who turns out - will McCain get enough conservatives to go to the polls or will Obama's enthusiastic left wing fringe garner more excitement?
My hope is the fear that a liberal as far left as Obama will pick 2-4 judges should be enough to get the conservatives and moderates out of their chairs and to the polls. Obama's judges will first take our property and land, then our guns and then our free speech - that is one scary thought
|
|
...in CA with same-sex marriage. Just up and declared a judicial fiat. And those were Pub judges.
June 17: Let the marriages begin. And, from what I understand, unlike Mass, couples can be married from all over the country.
We got our one million, one hundred thousand names to put a one man/one woman marriage amendment into the CA constitution in our Nov. election.
We'll see how hard the people fight against this. Stay tuned. |
|
After watching gas prices hit historic levels
and seeing empty houses from foreclosures
in the neighborhoods, people will seek as much
change from the current administration as they can get. There is no race in it. The winner
will be the guy who presents the best plan for
curing energy, and restoring order to the economy.
Watching ABC tonight it was clear that both sides needed a little help in the makeup department.
I thought McCain looked almost corpse like. Is
this just bad lighting or a deliberate attempt by the media to make him look bad?
Someone please get him some help!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
McCain did it to himslef.
It was not the media,
It was not the Lighting,
It was the message,
bland,
no compass,
trying to please all,
He needs to focus on conservatism, Reagan style message of hope, and optimism, without being critical of the present President. |
|
I do know something about politics and I do know something about voters. Except for a few (WVA and KY), people are totally thrilled ouuta their minds to vote for a black candidate...to the extent they will vote for Barack in spite of his skimpy credentials, scary foreign policy comments and terrifyingly clueless comments on taxes.
In this case, the VOTERS are racially motivated, excited to make history, and that's the truth.
And what's your crack about Montana (and by association Utah and Idaho)? That people from these state are actually against a black in the White House, but Obama is so dazzlingly accomplished they overcame their aversion? Good grief!
It is YOU who do not understand what's going on here. Ferraro was was correct. Even tho she believes she would have made the best VP, she is also quick to point out the only reason she was put on the ticket was because she was a woman.
A man with Hillary's credentials never would been considered for POTUS. And a white man with Barack's rather ordinary experiences as a community organizer/state legislature wouldn't either.
Barack probably would't be in the Senate today if not for the dirty tricks re: Jack Ryan's sealed divorce papers.
People with good sense and a concern for the country are concerned re: a giddy electorate who is so naively bedazzled by Barack's style they can't bear to look for honest-to-goodness substance. |
|
BTW: Just now listening to Rush who is making the point that all the national newspapers this morning are saying: Black, black, black, black....first black nominee for president.
Not a brilliant, proven leader, with a profound understanding of governance, foreign policy, global econony, oil supply, border security, national sovereignty, commanding the military, controlling gov't spending.
The big new is Barack's skin color.
I rest my case. |
|
I am a reforming liberal. I spoke with some of my neo con mentors today and they all tell me that
even if the republican standard bearer had no pulse they would still vote for him over the liberal!! Personally I live in mortal fear that
we might revisit the late 70's and early 80's if
traditional republican voters stay home. What
say you??? Any chance we get Condi for Veep? I'm
from Minnesota and for personal reasons hope
Johnny Mac doesn't pic governor T-Paw. |
|
You have no idea how heartbroken most conservatives are, McCain, as a maverick seldom gives the conservatives a warm kudos, lastnight, I was with him, till he threw the President under the bus on war in Iraq. On a nite that he knew, we were watching!
Hopefully, he will not pick Tim Pawlenty, still too liberal for GOP ticket!
Sarah Palin from Alaska, will be a wonderful balance with a nice resume, then, there is Michael Steele, I do not think Condi Rice is interested, she will be great too. Mitt Romney is good, we need someone with great personality, articulate and young, but not too young (i.e. B.Jindal), he will be fine too.
Terrorists, if they keep it quiet, then maybe Obama has a chance to win. National security/combating
Al Qaeda, how Iran behaves next few months, these, all will be major factors, all McCain strong points to get elected. Now, you see, why he knows, we have no other choice but him?
I believe, gov. T Paw., has been
really good for Minnesota, it's good for the party, that he stays there, his replacement, could be a Democrat. (Al Franken!) |
|
Thanks for all the good insights.
P.S.
Franken is Toast! |
|
1930's, that worries me too.
We never learn from history. |
|
|
Al Franken in the US Senate. The mind boggles. Wait, what am I thinking? He would fit right in with the other laughing stalks of the Democrat side. |
|
|
|