Style Points POTUS

With Senator Obama having won eight of the nine primaries/caucuses occuring in the past week while Senator Clinton regroups, Confederate Yankee Bob Owens makes the case against Obama. This time it’s a case filled with substance rather than ignorance-fueled innuendo--with the ignorance being of the willful variety.

For all the hype, Barack Obama is making his way though the Democratic nominating process by merely lip-syncing old liberal standards borrowed from those who came before him. When potential voters begin to notice the lack of originality behind the hype, the “change” candidate may find his fall to be just as meteoric as his rise.

Of course, most Conservative observers already knew that Obama’s record was light-to-nonexistent and that, of the known record, his stances on nearly every issue are invariably Far Left (has the word Communist become outmoded?) in nature and not exactly original. However, I think that the Liberal observers know this also. The thing is this: most simply don’t care. I predict that there will be no 'fall.'

Obama is visibly the candidate of ‘Change.’ That he manifestly is not the agent of substantive ‘Change’ matters not a whit to most of those who want to see him become POTUS. It is the real prospective of an openly card-carrying Red in the White House backed up by a solidly Democrat-controlled House and Senate—not some Jihadis-under the-bed apparition—which would be the most frightening; if I were frightened, that is.

Does that mean that Conservatives should coalesce behind the presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain? Frankly I don't think that it will make a difference whether we do or not, so it's best the vote one's conscience, as they say.

Change is in the air. I can smell it--when I'm not holding my nose.

Comments

[T-Steel]

I respect the heck outta ya baldilocks. But I have to be honest: it's hard for me not to vote for him simply because of history. My daughter (who's 12) asked me why there weren't any black presidents. I told her that they just haven't won the election to become POTUS. So she said, "I hope he wins. That would be make alot of people feel good". I just said, "I hope so."

It's hard for me baldilocks. Even though I don't believe Senator Obama is an "empty suit". But I wouldn't care. He's like the end result of the civil rights movement to me. It's scary how passionate I feel about this.

Am I wrong? I don't know.

[Eric Chen]

Replace "love" with "I want to support" and I feel about Senator Obama how Dorothy Boyd felt about Jerry McGuire: "I love him for the man he wants to be. And I love him for the man he almost is."

A big part of me *very much* wants to support Barack Obama for President . . . except the overriding issue for me is American leadership for the Long War, and Obama scares me on that front. At best, Obama remind me of John Kerry in 2004 claiming, literally in the space of seconds, that he is both anti-war and a better choice than President Bush to lead in war.

My first impulse was to convince myself that, as a principled liberal, Obama, despite his inexperience, has all the necessary qualities to rise to the challenge and take ownership of the liberal strategy the Bush admin has chosen in the War on Terror:

[quoting myself from Jan 7] "I like that Obama is black, and better, multicultural and cosmopolitan, relatively young, which is to say, he's post-Baby Boom, Civil Rights campaign and Vietnam War, and a pragmatic progressive idealist. Obama is inexperienced, but he has the right stuff to rise quickly and well to the challenge. It doesn't hurt at all that he's a fellow Columbian. I also believe, despite the boilerplate (and infuriating) anti-war rhetoric - required of all Democrats - he espouses, that Obama would not do anything rash and irresponsible about Iraq, such as precipitous withdrawal. Obama's mantra is the Kennedy-esque, "Let's go change the world". Does that sound like someone who would so seriously undermine America's power to effect change and abdicate our nation's leadership and moral responsibilities by surrendering in Iraq? Like me, Obama has a desire to use American primacy and power to make a progressive difference in the world, which cannot work by subordinating American will to other nations. In that way, he's not unlike the post-9/11 liberal-convert George Bush. We are in the midst of a generational challenge, a multi-faceted global revolution and competition, and I believe Obama has a clearer perspective without the deficiencies and historical baggage of the Baby Boomer generation. He's not trapped in the Cold War. Once Obama is actually in position to decide Operation Iraqi Freedom, he's not going to pull us out of Iraq, or the Long War, in a manner that would cause harm to his greater idealistic mandate. He wants to change the world for the better as President, and retreat and surrender in Iraq by his orders would collapse his goals from the outset. No matter the controversial start to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the stakes in Iraq now are world-changing. Once we are clear of the baggage of President Bush, who did what needed to be done, if not always done well, the next President will be able to clarify those stakes. A charismatic and articulate progressive liberal like Obama, as opposed to the frustratingly inarticulate liberal-convert Bush, will have the opportunity to highlight the progressive nature of our Iraq mission for the American and global audiences as well as warn of the long-term harm to the liberal world order that would result from our failure there."

At some point, though, I have to weigh Obama's stated positions versus the man I wish Obama to be as a war-time leader. When Moveon.org endorsed Obama, I was - with much regret - compelled to shift my support away from him.

[Quoting myself from Feb 2] "A big part of me thinks of Obama as the President I badly want - charismatic, principled and decent, serious, post-Baby Boom, multiethnic and multicultural, cosmopolitan, idealistic and progressive in the Kennedy sense. Also, he's a fellow Columbia grad. Remove the Long War from the equation, and he'd have my full support. However, the fact remains that the issue that matters the most to me is that we win the peace in the Long War. Obama's pandering to the anti-war Left deeply disturbs me."

I still believe Barack Obama would be the best choice we have to be our President in the Long War . . . if only Obama believed it himself. For now, because of the one issue, John McCain has my support because he holds the most sensible position on the Long War. I still want to support Obama, and if Obama can convince me that he is ready to become the liberal champion of a liberal war, then I can see myself supporting him again.

[dick]

While I may like the ideals that he represents in his person, I think that for the office of president we need to take a good look not at what Obama has said, but what Obama has done. Precious little and when he was elected to represent the people of Illinois in the senate he has done nothing for them at all except run for president. I would like to see Obama get some executive experience. I would like Obama to tell us how he plans to accomplish all these things he has said he is going to do. I would like Obama to tell us how turning over the power of our military to the UN will be in the best interests of the USA. I would like Obama to do the job he was elected to do.

At that time I think he might be worth supporting. Until then a glossy wrapping on a not much product. He is the 2008 version of John Edwards of 2004 in a different shade. Neither did anything for the people who elected them. Neither of them did anything in the Senate. Both of them put on a pretty face. Both of them spoke well. Neither has, at this point in time, what it takes to be president IMNSHO.