So another day passes and we've yet to see any blowback from the latest politically manufactured "controversy," Obama's "bitter" remarks from a fundraiser last week.
This leaves me with a few thoughts. Here are three major factors that the media fails to understand about this 2008 election. . .
1. If this is truly going to be a "change" election, then the same old labels and tactics are simply not going to work.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. In both the "Wright" and "bitter" controversies, Obama's critics overplayed their hands.
It wasn't enough to simply state that Wright could be a question of judgment. No, critics had to go overboard by trying and paint Obama as a black radical who hates America.
It wasn't enough to disagree with Obama's "bitter" comment and let it fester on its own. No, critics had to go overboard and try and make him into an elitist.
Obama's opponents raised the bar so high on each criticism, that voters found them incredible. You can disagree with Obama all you want. But it's gonna take a lot more to make the average voter think he's an elitist, Marxist black radical who hates America.
2. We, the people, are speaking and we want to be heard. It's not surprising that, after two decades of double speech, finger pointing and passing the buck, we'll recoil at the slightest sign of "politics as usual," and cheap pandering
This is something that the Clinton camp can't seem to avoid.
Critics have wrongfully assumed that Obama must be perfect, even messianic, to accomplish the change he seeks to bring about. That's not the case. Despite claims of cultism, Obama's supporters know that their candidate is far from perfect. Obama, himself, has even gone out of his way to say that he'll make mistakes. But, like most things in life, the success of a political campaign is relative to the dysfunction of it's competitors. McCain does not inspire and Clinton has run a dysfunctional campaign. Obama looks better and better each and every day.
We'll take a politician with flaws. But Hillary has more than "flaws." She comes across as FAKE; completely rehearsed, poll-tested and scripted. Her attacks have been predictable; her ever-changing goal posts all the more transparent.
This leaves people with the growing impression that she's in this for herself, not for the American people. Her proclivity to ignore reality (e.g., math), adopt Republican talking points, dismiss process (e.g., "caucuses are undemocratic," "MI and FL should count despite my agreeing that they would not") and create her own reality speak of someone who is willing to do and say anything to win something that she sees as an entitlement.
True, neither candidate will reach the magic 2025 number of delegates (although Obama has an outside shot at it). But don't ignore the elephant in the room. Come June, the people will have spoken. And they will have chosen their candidate as so represented by the person ahead in pledged delegates. Sorry, Hillary, that's Obama. Even Hillary supporter, Rep. Barney Frank, said as much in a recent interview.
Both Obama and Clinton have gone on record as saying that this is all about the delegates. And the Democratic Party WILL NOT destroy itself just to appease Hillary Clinton and her supporters by handing over a nomination that she did not earn.
3. A change election means that you can't rely on old, traditional measures of success.
Wake up, media. Obama is changing the electoral map. That's been his goal from the beginning and he's doing a great job of it so far.
People talk about Obama's hard time reaching rural, white voters. Yet, they IGNORE THE FACT that he has successfully created a new coalition of voters that makes the Reagan Democrat less essential to a Democratic victory in November.
Why doesn't the media ask this simple question: How can Hillary win in November without the black vote? Without the youth vote? And, yes, without the liberal ("latte sippin'") vote. Let's see . . . young, educated, urban, black. . . yup, I just described the urban voter. She's getting crushed in these three demographics and her negatives amongst these groups are growing by the minute.
I don't care how much you love the Reagan Democrat. A Democratic nominee ain't winning JACK if he or she can't mobilize the urban vote. Look at the maps, folks. PA is a RED state with blue fringes. This general election will be about one thing . . . GOTV (get out the vote). Who has the ability to generate more voters in November? Obama or Hillary? It's not even a contest. . . Obama.
Democrats win a state like PA in the general election by running up the score in densely populated, URBAN CITIES like Philadelphia. They DO NOT win by being "Republican-lite;" adopting Republican terms of engagement; and trying to convince conservative voters in rural PA to believe that the Democratic Party is something that it is not. Once again, the Democrats will win when they play to their strengths, but NOT so long as they continue to cower to bully tactics and labels like "elitism," and "unpatriotic." I'll say it again . . . Democrats . . . GROW A BACKBONE!!!
In conclusion, I've yet to see any real evidence that any of these "controversies" have seriously hurt Obama. The PA polls are basically the same. And, as of last night, Obama enjoyed his largest national lead in the Gallup poll (51% to 40%).
Message to the mainstream media: This country is bigger than PA and blue collar whites aren't the only "real Americans."
Get it?
Honestly, the media probably won't "get it" until it sees Obama get sworn in as our next President.
So, while you're busy trying to find a new excuse to explain away Obama's success. . . while you're digging for the next non-story "controversy," or parsing each and every syllable he utters for signs of elitism . . .
Just think of this for a moment. . .
Maybe, just maybe, we're not as dumb as the pundits think we are.
Not this time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment