OPINION & EDITORIAL
As general election approaches, Obama faces uphill battle
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by John Sprangers:
- Debate victory a credit to issues (February 14, 2008)
- U.S. foreign policy promises dependent on advisers (January 31, 2008)
- Free trade debate needs rethinking (December 13, 2007)
- Campaigns fail country, voters (November 30, 2007)
- Green movement missing key link (November 16, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Barack Obama: Political St. Nick (October 15, 2007)
- Obama: Visionary, not fraudulent (September 19, 2007)
- Obama's charisma essential to victory (January 29, 2007)
- Dissecting Obama-mania (March 12, 2007)
- Presidential race crazier than ever (February 19, 2007)
by John Sprangers
Thursday, February 28, 2008
With each passing day, it seems more certain that Barack Obama will do what was once unthinkable. As his deficits in Ohio and Texas polls shrivel to preclude the possibility of catastrophic defeats that would put the race back into play, Mr. Obama will almost assuredly defeat the most powerful and gifted Democratic family in existence to win the nomination of the party, which they singlehandedly lent relevance to for some time.
And when the dust settles around a sealed Obama nomination after the March 4 primaries, the hard part will begin.
It will not be a cakewalk to the White House. John McCain is a highly respected candidate, and his name on the ballot will give Americans of diverse backgrounds and ideologies pause come election time, if nothing else. To defeat Mr. McCain, the Obama camp faces an entirely new set of challenges.
One of these challenges is for Mr. Obama to continue to meet the astronomical expectations he has set for himself as a candidate and human being. As conservative columnist William Kristol noted in The New York Times this week, though Mr. Obama’s rhetoric seeks to empower supporters by suggesting he is a symbol of their own desire to work toward a conciliatory political climate, his candidacy’s implied raison d’etre is that he is a singular force of change the likes of which Americans will not see again.
“Obamania” is only made possible by the man’s unique combination of qualities: proven intellect, multinational ethnic heritage, non-contradictory political record, traditional family life, unimpeachable ethics and just enough experience in federal government to demonstrate competency while still allowing him to refer to Washington as “the other.” Take away one of these, and he might cease to be such a source of inspiration.
So, if we were to see less-than-beatific behavior from Mr. Obama in the long second leg to the presidency, whether in the form of unearthed political inconsistencies or skeletons from his personal history’s closet, would he continue to dominate? If a certain flaw is revealed that makes Mr. Obama seem incapable of being a “uniter,” or even simply less than perfect, will his campaign lose steam? Mr. Obama’s approach demands perfection, and it is one that can be both enormously successful and extremely volatile.
It also remains to be seen whether Mr. Obama can capitalize on the bipartisan support surrounding his campaign as we enter the more polarized general election stage.
American presidential campaigns are personality-focused, and never more so than in pre-nomination. Character traits are decisive in early votes because party compatriots tend to run on very similar platforms. Democratic debates this season have been a perfect example — on every major issue it seemed as if there was an echo in the room. Candidates are really only composed of two variables — policy and persona — and when distinctions in the former are close to nil, selections are based on the latter.
Thus, it has been Mr. Obama’s immense capacity to inspire, not the particulars of his policies, that has been instrumental in carrying him to the brink of first-round victory.
But I’m afraid this curiosity will become extinct in the harsher environs of the general election. Unlike intra-party contests, McCain-Obama will not only offer voters two unique personalities and biographies, it will present two drastically different policy platters.
Contrary to the Clintons’ contention, Mr. Obama’s campaign is proposing many bold, substantive changes. Perhaps complicating dreams of bipartisan unity, many of these — including making the social security tax code more progressive, cutting corporate tax loopholes and slowing the pace of trade liberalization — are at odds with economic policies traditionally favored by Republicans.
In a recent poll by Rasmussen Reports, a whopping 80 percent of voters indicated the economy is “of top importance as an electoral issue.” In light of this, bipartisan support for Mr. Obama has the potential to dry up when Republicans come face-to-face with his economic prescriptions. Can an Obama candidacy survive votes inevitably determined by individuals’ pocketbooks? Will there be any surviving Obamacans come November?
Though politics would be a secondary concern in such an event, a national security crisis would likely rally public support behind a longtime military man such as Mr. McCain. It wouldn’t even necessarily take a terrorist attack on the homeland — any signs of global unrest perceived as threatening to American interests could radically change the race.
A reawakening of Chinese military aggression toward Taiwan, bold moves by Iran, continued Russian intransigence on nuclear issues, even a critical mass of African upheavals — any of these could sink Mr. Obama, who has not convinced many Americans that he could serve as a strong commander in chief in a crisis. Besides the continued violence in Iraq, we have been lucky to live in relative peace for the last few years. Does the Obama camp have a contingency plan for more trying times?
The Obama campaign has, and can continue to be, a great national antidote to Bush-era polarization. But after March 4, the game changes completely. Here’s hoping Mr. Obama can adjust to the trials that lie ahead.
John Sprangers (sprangers@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science and international studies.
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 3:07am):
Once you referenced Bill Kristol, who hasn't had a meaningful, rational or reasonable thing to say in nigh on a decade, I stopped reading.
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 8:08am):
I am enjoying the Badger Herald opinions that have locked onto the likely Democratic nominee and try to temper our enthusiasm for him. Perhaps by November, the BH can successfully convert activated college voters into drooling apathetic pseudo-Americans.
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 9:01am):
To 8:08am: Oh, God forbid that someone write something not obsessively glowing about Obama! How shameful!
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 10:23am):
"unimpeachable ethics"
Now THAT's funny!
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 10:33am):
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.
After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 10:41am):
Do you feel lost and left out because when someone mentions âRezkoâ you think itâs that company that makes frisbees? (Sorry, but youâre confusing âWham-Oâ who make that backyard widow-maker âSlip ân Slideâ with a political fixer whoâs just plain slippery.)
Are you confused by the head spinning machinations of Barack Obama that allowed him to purchase a house worth $2.6 million (with a vacant lot next door that can be accessed only through the property where the house sits) for around $1.65 million? (Donât worry, so is most of the press.)
Do you wonder why this âAgent of Changeâ and modern day prophet Barack Obama would have gotten himself involved with a man indicted for political corruption and fraud?
Well, allow me to clear things up for you. Following is a little primer on Rezko, Obama, and how Windy City politics can have its way even with new messiahs.
To set the stage, you have to remember that weâre talking about Chicago. This is âThe City That Works.â No one disputes that. The question is who it âworksâ for. If youâre a member of the Democratic Machine, it works wonderfully.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/what_you_didnt_know_about_obam.php
Read it all before drinking the Obamaania coolaid.
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 12:13pm):
Ann Althouse impressively explicates the text of the exchange between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Obama's dance around the question of Louis Farrakhan's support for him.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-farrakhan-and-how-hillary-clinton.html
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 12:22pm):
10:41, I hate to break it to you, but there's not a 100% clean politician out there. I'll settle for 95% clean... McCain, Clinton and Obama are banking on it.
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 12:24pm):
Someone who can't spell Kool Aid. . .
Michael Johnson (February 28, 2008 @ 12:42pm):
Amy Alexander of The Nation however, 12:13, paints the more honest picture of the Obama-Clinton exchange with Tim Russert...
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=291669
Unlike David Duke and the GOP, it's difficult to scold even a bigot like Farrakhan, who has provided jobs and resources for black people in their time of need...
I only hope that when the bigots and homophobes from the Christian Right support McCain that you will not have a double standard, but I doubt it.
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 2:27pm):
Wow, I can't believe how stupid you are.
So some ethical scandal is going to stop Obama? Are you at all familiar with John McCain? The Keating Five, Vicki Iseman, and his flip-flopping on every issue that made him a "maverick" should be enough to turn people off. Was for abortion, now against it. For gay marriage, now against it. Took his name off the McCain-Feingold Act. He is now BREAKING THE LAW by not abiding by public financing when he promised to during the primary.
Yeah, unimpeachable ethics indeed. As one commenter said, we'll settle for 95 percent ethical, and little of Obama's past is going to put him below that mark.
Next there is your fear-mongering, which apparently comes from too many viewings of the O'Reilly Factor. You really say what will happen if we have a terrorist attack? I mean really? Just shut up.
"Contrary to the Clintons' contention, Mr. Obamaâs campaign is proposing many bold, substantive changes. Perhaps complicating dreams of bipartisan unity, many of these ... are at odds with economic policies traditionally favored by Republicans."
Yeah, that's why people want change -- because they're sick of the policies "traditionally favored by Republicans." That's why Obama will get more support. He hasn't supported George Bush for the past seven years.
I'll say it again: You are an idiot.
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 2:32pm):
"it's difficult to scold even a bigot like Farrakhan, who has provided jobs and resources for black people in their time of need..."
The KKK provided jobs and resources for ahite people in their time of need...
And Mussolini was successful in stabilizing the economy and taking his country out of economic turmoil too.
Calling Farrakhan a "bigot" is much too kind.
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 3:22pm):
"Hope!" is the mantra of the Obama supporters. How 'hopeful' should we be? Let's consider the 'qualifications' of Barack Hussein Obama.
1)no significant State or Federal experience in economic management,
2)no experience in Diplomacy or International Affairs,
3)no Military experience,
4)no Business experience, and
5)no practical experience as a freshman Senator, other than 3 years of building a 'grass roots' organization, lining up financial backers, and running for President.
What Barack Hussien Obama lacks in experience and common sense, he makes up for in vacuous 'American Idol' appeal and rhetoric without substantive support. On critical issues before the Senate requiring a recorded vote, his most frequent response has been "Present", rather than "Yea" or "Nay". I guess he 'hopes' we won't notice that lack of courage and backbone.
His supporters claim he is a 'uniter' but his extremely limited voting record is straight forward partisan democrat. He is a 'uniter' in words only. He is 'experienced' in words only.
"Hope!" is an appropriate appelation for Barack Hussein Obama's ambitions. There is little else to recommend him. If he becomes President, we will have nothing other than "hope" to see us through troubled times and protect us from terrorist attacks.
All things considered, Barack Hussein Obama is poorly qualified for Commander in Chief and President of the United States of America by any standard, even the myopic and low standards of hopeful Liberals.
Anonymous (May 21, 2008 @ 5:47pm):
Sadly, I don't believe that Obama has a remote chance of winning a national election...not in this country at least. How quickly we've forgotten about the "Red State Effect". Whether or not democrats want to believe it, America is still a racist (and sexist) nation. That fact will become readily apparent to everyone the day after the election. The African-American/rich liberal/college kid-vote does not equal the presidency. The "NASCAR dads" and "Security Moms" who do decide American elections will not vote for a man who admittedly supports a divisive preacher that has made quotes like "God Damn America" and "Israel doesn't have a right to exist"...whether he actually believes that or not. Those same "NASCAR Dads" and "Security Moms" will not vote for a man with the middle name of Husein. You may view me as a villain for stating the obvious and not playing it safe and PC, but I'm just calling as it is. Since when did this country stop being racist? Did the "War on Terror" make working-class Southern and Mid-Western whites more tolerant of those who are different than they are? I think not. The American presidency has nothing to do with issues, it's nothing more than a glorified popularity contest and the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of the electorate is made up of right-leaning, Christian, white, middle-aged, males who vote for candidates who look, talk, act and think like they do. It's really too bad because democrats actually had a chance to win this election. They won the Senate last time around by nominating Southern/Mid-Western whites in right-leaning battleground states...in other words, they won by nominating "Good Ol' Boys" that "NASCAR Dads" could "drink a beer with". Had they nominated a ticket of say, John Edwards/Jim Webb, they could've won a Red State or two and in effect won the presidency. Obama simply cannot, no matter how badly we'd like to believe otherwise. I fear democrats have become so out of touch with reality, they've overplayed their hand, squandered their nomination on a pipe dream and will be handily defeated in the Fall. This is still the same America it's always been and that hasn't changed. Hopefully, Americans will prove me wrong in November but I wouldn't bet on it...
Anonymous (May 21, 2008 @ 5:49pm):
I don't believe that Obama has a remote chance of winning a national election...not in this country at least. How quickly we've forgotten about the "Red State Effect". Whether or not democrats want to believe it, America is still a racist (and sexist) nation. That fact will become readily apparent to everyone the day after the election. The African-American/rich liberal/college kid-vote does not equal the presidency. The "NASCAR dads" and "Security Moms" who do decide American elections will not vote for a man who admittedly supports a divisive preacher that has made quotes like "God Damn America" and "Israel doesn't have a right to exist"...whether he actually believes that or not. Those same "NASCAR Dads" and "Security Moms" will not vote for a man with the middle name of Husein. You may view me as a villain for stating the obvious and not playing it safe and PC, but I'm just calling as it is. Since when did this country stop being racist? Did the "War on Terror" make working-class Southern and Mid-Western whites more tolerant of those who are different than they are? I think not. The American presidency has nothing to do with issues, it's nothing more than a glorified popularity contest and the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of the electorate is made up of right-leaning, Christian, white, middle-aged, males who vote for candidates who look, talk, act and think like they do. It's really too bad because democrats actually had a chance to win this election. They won the Senate last time around by nominating Southern/Mid-Western whites in right-leaning battleground states...in other words, they won by nominating "Good Ol' Boys" that "NASCAR Dads" could "drink a beer with". Had they nominated a ticket of say, John Edwards/Jim Webb, they could've won a Red State or two and in effect won the presidency. Obama simply cannot, no matter how badly some would like to believe otherwise. I fear democrats have become so out of touch with reality, they've overplayed their hand, squandered their nomination on a pipe dream and will be handily defeated in the Fall. This is still the same America it's always been and that hasn't changed. Hopefully, Americans will prove me wrong in November but I wouldn't bet on it...
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
