Link to another blog post

I needed to respond to a post for another class and it ended up being posted on this blogs main site. It's about Obama and his chances for President.

http://politicalgrind.com/2007/02/26/the-obama-equivalent/

I have to respectfully disagree.

Obama’s campaign looks exactly like a fad.
The age of electability based on charismatic leadership is over. The extensive vetting process that candidates now have to endure exposes every aspect of a candidate’s life, but more importantly the 24 hour news cycle makes mountains over what a casual observer might call a mole-hill. This causes a phenomena where even when the public might not mind a certain weakness (namely a lack of experience) that weakness is talked about over and over and over changing the publics mindset over time. So while they may be moved be a speech, they are changed by those facts that are repeated, and the soundtrack of Obama will sound increasingly like a broken record of “inexperience.”

While some like to try to compare him to Lincoln, who was inexperienced when he became President the comparison is an ill-fit. It’s not that both were not underdogs, nor is it that both were not charismatic and visionary- but the comparison lacks any historical perspective in terms of the development of the media. Lincoln didn’t carry on his campaign with 24 hour satellite coverage and a media entourage. Becoming President these days is no quiet matter; it is an extravaganza of people and events, interviews and photo-ops, and each time Obama slips, the American people will be there to watch the newbie fall. But where the Lincoln-Obama connection doesn’t quite take, there are other public figures against whom Obama can easily be measured.

In some respects Obama is reminiscent of Senator John Edwards in 2002/2003. He is attractive, well educated, and seems to appeal to a broad base. However, in the end most Democrats didn’t feel like Edwards could seriously contest President Bush because he didn’t have enough experience.

Obama is also similar to Governor Howard Dean in the past election. Dean was the big story for many new cycles because he was revolutionizing the internet campaign and using youth voters to an extent never seen before. But Dean peaked too soon. His campaign began as a visionary one and fell apart when the crushing weight of having to propose policy as a front runner was brought to bear. Once the weakness of his charming rhetoric was stripped away the democratic voters were left with a bold relief of a man who simply didn’t seem electable.

Obama may invigorate some part of the youth vote as Dean did in ‘04, but that certainly does not ensure him the primary much less the election. Even if the youth vote brings him within sight of winning a few primaries national statistics suggest that youth voters across the nation are as split down the middle as all other voting groups- forcing Obama to focus on issues and not demographics.

But back to a poor comparison: Obama and Bill Clinton. Obama is no Bill Clinton. Clinton was and still is a charismatic, political force. Clinton ran at a time when all other serious Democratic challengers couldn’t get their names out of the race fast enough because then President H. W. Bush had one of the highest approval ratings in history. Obama has serious challengers that have far more resources and experience than he. But most importantly his biggest challenger, Hillary Clinton, has already been vetted in the campaign process and will likely not have anything new come to light in this presidential campaign.

And if Obama does make it through the primary it appears he would likely be running against Senator John McCain, an older, more experienced, more respected war hero. While McCain would look incredibly old next to a young and vigorous Obama, McCain is extremely popular with moderates and is seen as a man who would unite a divided country. Imagine the evening news after a debate where John McCain simply turned to Obama on an issue and said “You’ve still got a lot to learn.” And ultimately that may become the epitaph of the Obama campaign, “You’ve still got a lot to learn.”

This race will ultimately come down to the administration’s record and that may help Obama if he does win the Democratic nomination. However, he has a long road ahead of him and while people feel he is the newest and greatest thing now they may feel very differently in a year and a half. Think of how long other candidates like Ralph Nader, Allan Keyes, or Geraldine Ferraro looked promising? America’s attention span is just far too short for a candidate whose greatest asset is a knock-out smile and an inspiring voice.

--Kristine

Are the Democrats really any different?

During the midterm elections the Democrats made many promises to 'change things' and 'get things done' unlike, they claimed, the Republicans had done in their time in power. By working with the Republicans, and compromising undoubtedly in the middle of what either party wants, the middle of the political spectrum where most Americans are would be best served.

But is it in the Democrats best political interest to work with the Republicans? No. If they want to better their chances for 2008 the Democrats can’t work hand in hand with the Republicans because it will anger their base. They need to fight the Republicans tooth and nail, and win. However, this means two more years of partisan politics which will leave Congress’s hands tied resulting in nothing substantive getting done.

Congress has never been known for being overly coherent and productive. The Founding Fathers didn’t mean for it to be. Congress was designed to be slow and methodical so that radical changes could not regularly shake up our system of government. Yet, Congress hasn’t been doing any of the work of the people, not in the past two years under the Republicans and from the looks of things not in the next two years under the Democrats. Congress is doing the work of their own respective political parties in hopes of bettering their chances for reelection, just to further this ongoing cat and mouse game that does nothing but leave the moderate Americans hopeless with no where to look for optimism.

--Kristine Miller

Presidential Politics: Huckabee Claims He Won't Scare Moderates

Presidential Politics: Huckabee Claims He Won't Scare Moderates

Welcome to America in the Middle

Welcome to America in the Middle, a forum created to discuss and promote the advancement of a moderate America. The 2004 presidential election was one marked by extreme divisions in the United States electorate. Anger points were put forth by each side in an attempt to create a dichotomy in America. For the war, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage--If you were any of these things you were a Red-state conservative. Against the war, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage--Any these things meant you were liberal and from either the Northeast, West Coast, or Lake states. In reality, America's political views have always been more diverse, and even in November 2004, most Americans were some shade of purple. However, a jaded America was forced to decide between an the admittedly highly conservative incumbant administration and supposedly the "two most liberal senators in Congress (Fox News)."

Luckily, two years changed everything. The 2006 mid-term elections were an overwhelming victory for the Democrats who unseated the Republican majority, but it also marked a giant leap towards the middle, from American voters frustrated with a corrupt rubber-stamp Congress, a war with no perceiveable end, new highs in the deficit, new lows in health care, and a failed immigration policy that had not been firmly addressed by either party in a decade. Americans came from both sides of the two-tone political spectrum to a center that had not been represented for six years.

For proof of this, look no further than to the self-positioning of '08 presidential contenders before and after the election. Hillary Clinton, formerly liberals' leading lady, reiterated her support for the war but denounced it's "mismanagement" to make herself more conservative. Senator Sam Brownback, from my homestate of Kansas, who before the mid-terms was the ultra-conservatives' pick for the Republican nomination, based on his dedication to his extreme positions on social issues, has now denounced the troop surge in an attempt to balance himself to the new apparent national opinion. The only unfortuante exception in this political metamorphisis has been John McCain, who, in an effort to make himself palatable to the extreme elements of his party, has come out in stringent support for Bush's "surge," and has likely scuttled his presidential hopes at the same time.

One thing is certain, that without any incumbant running for presidential nomination, this will be the most open election since the Cold War. It will be one worth watching, and we will be watching out for the America, caught in the Middle.