Who Is Barack Obama?
With 68 percent of Americans believing George Bush has done a poor job, and 82 percent saying the country is on the wrong track, the election of 2008 will turn on one issue: Barack Obama.
If Sen. Obama can convince the people he is “one of us,” and not some snooty radical liberal from Chicago’s Hyde Park, who looks down upon white America as a fever swamp of racism and reaction, a la the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the senator will be the next president.
The election of 2008 thus mirrors the election of 1980.
Then, the country wanted Jimmy Carter gone. Americans had had enough of 21 percent interest rates, 13 percent inflation and 7 percent unemployment. They wanted the Iranian hostage crisis ended, violently if necessary. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, America wanted a leader who would not kiss Leonid Brezhnev on the cheek but reassert American power.
The issue then was Ronald Reagan. Portrayed as some Al Capp cartoon of a crazed right-winger and B-Grade Hollywood actor given to spouting Reader’s Digest bromides, Reagan was regarded as ridiculous by much of the media and too big a risk by much of the nation.
In one debate with Carter, Reagan erased the misperceptions and turned a close race into a cakewalk. That is Barack’s opportunity.
A savvy politician, he has measured correctly the hurdle he must surmount and is moving expeditiously to alter an image of him forged by his own past associations and policy positions. In three weeks, he has jettisoned his new politics in a stunning display of raw pragmatism.
A prime minister must be “a good butcher,” H.H. Asquith told Winston Churchill on naming him First Lord of the Admiralty, “and there are several who need to be pole-axed now.” Four years later, Asquith would pole-axe Churchill over the Dardanelles disaster.
Obama is not lacking in this capacity that Richard Nixon, too, felt was an indispensable attribute of a statesman.
Samantha Power was tossed off Barack’s sledge after calling Hillary a “monster” and suggesting Barack’s Iraq timetable was not set in concrete. Robert Malley was canned for having talked to Hamas, though that was his portfolio at a think tank for conflict resolution.
Barack pole-axed pastor Wright and, though he said he could no more repudiate his church than his family, shortly after the second time Wright went off, Barack severed all ties to Trinity United.
Barack has spoken of how he cringed at the racist reaction of his white grandmother after she was accosted by a black man on a bus. Grandma has now been rehabilitated in a new ad as the loving woman who inculcated good old Kansas values into little Barack.
When his own surrogate, Gen. Wesley Clark, suggested John McCain’s war service did not automatically qualify him as presidential timber, a storm erupted. Barack proceeded to cut the general’s legs off.
His had been one of a few Senate voices to speak of Palestinian suffering. But Barack’s address to the Israeli lobby read like it was plagiarized from the collected works of Ze’ev Jabotinsky.
When the Supreme Court declared every citizen has a Second Amendment right to a handgun, Barack stood with Justice Scalia. When Scalia said the court ought not to have taken away Louisiana’s right to execute child rapists, Barack was with him again.
When Congress voted the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding with the Bush administration in wiretapping citizens, Barack stood with Bush and the telecoms. Fearing it might cost him his huge money-raising advantage over McCain, Barack tossed campaign finance reform over the side.
In Ohio, Barack was a populist opponent of NAFTA. He is now a free-trader. Yet when economic adviser Austan Goolsbee told the Canadians pretty much the same thing, Barack disinherited him.
As July 4 approached, Barack gratuitously dissed his friends at MoveOn.org for their “General Betray Us” ad mocking Gen. David Petraeus. And that flag pin Barack got rid of after 9-11, calling it a “substitute ... for real patriotism”? It’s back on the lapel.
Last week, Barack said that, after he meets with Petraeus and his field commanders in Iraq, he might “refine” his commitment to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades within 16 months.
And finally, Obama has co-opted President Bush’s faith-based initiative and claimed it as his own.
What is Obama up to? Having secured the nomination, he is moving to convince the nation he is neither a black militant nor a radical, but a man of the center who will even listen to the right.
Though infuriating to readers of The Huffington Post, this may save Barack. For in Middle America folks worry less about politicians adjusting positions than about True Believers willing to go over the cliff with flags flying--and taking us with them.
Reagan was no Barry Goldwater. He knew when to “hold ‘em,” and he knew when to “fold ‘em.” Yet, America still knew who Reagan was.
We may be misunderestimating Barack. But the question of 2008 remains: When all is said and done, who is this guy?
Comments
As an avid MSNBC watcher (mostly for Buchanan’s expert analysis) and a new visitor to paleocon/lib thought, I have been confused: Why does Mr. Buchanan seem to favor McCain? It cannot possibly be on policy: McCain’s immigration reform ideas, war stance and general attitude towrad globalism run entirely counter to all that Buchanan espouses in his books, whereas Obama at least sees a need to end our misadventure in Iraq. Were Buchanan to make a public point of endorsing Barr or Baldwin, it would make sense. But his critiques of McCain, while scathing, are critiques of policy only, while his critiques of Obama seem more personal. As a new but avid Buchanan fan—and an avowed McCain doubter—I’m perplexed.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
I find the distinction you make between personal and policy to be naive. Because Obama is such a relative newcomer to politics, Americans do not really know who this candidate is and what he is really about. We must therefore formulate an opinion of this unknown man by the company he keeps. Consider his twenty year frienly associations to radical left wingers and furious black militants. Now reflect on his voting record—the most liberal record in the senate. What we have here are clear indications of what an Obama presidency will look like. Bigger government, more taxes, more multiculturalism, more immigration, more welfare and more anti-hate legislation. In other words…socialist redistributionism at its worst. I think this might be one of the reasons Buchanan doesn’t support Obama, although I wouldn’t make the claim that he supports the Neocon McCain either.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Chris: What I mean is that you’ll never hear Buchanan utter a word about McCain’s age, wealth, anger, etc., nor of his ties to Charlie Black, Phil “Enron loophole” Graham, et al… but you will hear a lot of analysis of Obama’s ties to Wright/Ayers/et al, his attitude, etc. Seems to me there are two different measuring sticks being used, which is precisely my point: Unline Buchanan’s usual fair-minded treatment, he gives the IMPRESSION, at least, that he’s for some reason silently pulling for McCain, even though they seemingly agree on almost nothing. Elsewhere here, at American Conservative and other places, the paleocon community seems to be fairly critiquing both candidates, and not playing favorites.
Also, I’d like to clarify: Are you suggesting you’d favor the candidate who supports more pro-hate legislation? :-P
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think Chris is likely correct. McCain has many years of public service behind him from which to judge what a McCain Pres will be like. Obama really doesn’t have much in the way of public record (and what he has is not very encouraging). Therefore, the only accurate stick we have to measure is the more personal one.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t offer an accurate or fair comparison. For instance, if you said to me, “How much water is in each of the ocean, compared to in this cup?”, and I replied, “There is XX height of water in the cup, but we can’t get the height of water in the ocean, so there are XX gallons in the ocean,” the comparison does nothing. If Obama is to be judged on his personal, it’s only fitting that McCain be subject to the same scrutiny.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Am I missing something here? How could anyone even entertain any kind of support for Obama, no matter how qualified? The man has so much hatred for unwanted babies that he twice supported a bill that would have allowed a mother to have a doctor kill a baby who survived a botched abortion. That’s infanticide. This man should be locked up for aiding and abetting murder by stealing tax payers’ money to pay baby killers.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Pat is nothing but honest.... He doesn’t play politics - THAT stopped yrs ago.... Labels be damned.... Pat is the happy bomb-thrower - to hell with the hacks - the kool-aid drinkers - the ignorant sheeple who tune to the likes of limbaugh and hannity and their corp whore bretheren!.... God Bless PJB!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Pat is coming to the realization, as the rest of America will at some point, that Obama, like every egomaniacal lawyer, especially an ivy league one, and like every politician, is a sophist. The man may or may not have a soul, but he will say and do whatever he thinks his immediate audience wants to hear. McCain is doing the same. We’ll hear both of them “flip-flopping” non-stop. And should this be a surprise? The only principle in America is that there is no principle aside from money.
But here’s something else: At least since Reagan Americans have elected presidents that have a certain likeable foolish goofiness about them. All of them seemed sorta’ like nice guys to hang around with and crack jokes and have some beers. Obama is awefully stiff (nothing wrong with that in my view) but I’m not sure that’s appealing to the masses. McCain is no more appealing in that regard with his Zionistoid zeal and the constant vertical hitting of the podium with his hand. But it seems he could on take on the role of the likeable fool ("I’m telling you my friends...") more easily than Obama.
Justin:
There’s on and one reason only why Buchanan is silently supporting McCain and why many paleo-cons will end up with McCain: Supreme Court justices. The hope is that he will nominate conservative justices. This is an important issue as these people get to keep their jobs far longer than any president and are supposedly more influential. Is that issue more important than the war? At this point I’m inclined to say no as long as Americans are dying for nothing. But for many it is. The war is just so far away.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
The point being made is that the means of comparing the two squarely on policy is lacking on the one side. Pat isn’t really picking a side by doing this but merely trying to be a political commentator. He never endorses until right before an election.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The likelihood that McCain will appoint “conservative” justices, who would overturn much of his life’s work, is doubtful.
Regarding the original point of my inquiry, Buchanan seems to be silently endorsing McCain, where others (Larison, Gottfried, etc.) seem to lean only toward Barr, since both candidates are so far from their ideals. Now, the pragmatist that I am says it’s important to pick sides, even if idealism pushes one toward a third party. But regardless, I have a hard time understanding the rationale that Jack mentions, i.e. “war for 100 years/league of nations/empty promises on judicial appointments” vs. “pullout of Iraq/liberal otherwise,” making one pick McCain instead of Obama.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Here’s all you need to know about Barack Obama:
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/barack.htm
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you Mr. Sienna for brining up Edgar Steele, a non-patriot who will gladly kill America, if Jews die first.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
the paleocon community seems to be fairly critiquing both candidates, and not playing favorites.
Then they’re stupid. The media is canonizing Obama, but not McCain. Ergo, Paleos who “play fair” are screwing themselves.
This is one of many ways in which media manipulation works.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The best comment made about Barack Obama’s political popularity was the following:
“You can write anything you want on a blank slate...”
Democratic Party activists like Rudy Taxeria (who wrote: The Forgotten Majority: The White
Working Class) has been urging Democrats for years to rein in their McGovern-era positions,
and talk like “populists” on social and economic issues.
obviously, this has worked for Republicans for years--they talk like populists on social
issues, but govern like oligarchs on economic issues. Now Obmaa is going to follow the
gams plan right out of the Republican Party playbook, and oh my, are they MAD about that!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Who is he? Just another interventionist, statist, pro-Israel pol who’ll say anything to get elected.
A white man who thanks to his father’s DNA happens to look like American blacks and has spent his whole adult life identifying as black both for emotional reasons and political advantage.
And of course ‘some snooty radical liberal from Chicago’s Hyde Park, who looks down upon white America’. Spot-on.
Grandma was a liberal Unitarian from Seattle who moved there to get away from Kansas values as Steve Sailer explains.
The question is, as Buchanan rightly asks, will enough of Middle America swallow the corn syrup of his latest ad campaigns to give him the presidency?
Blog.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
By all appearances, Mr. Obama is the current designee to slide into the Bosun’s Seat on the Pirate Ship Oligarchy. The Swells who run the joint were unnerved by Hillary, they never knew when she might break Wesleyan and with McCain, why..... he could wig out at any moment, upend the Oval Office Desk and start scuttling about the place like an enraged Sow Bug, vetoing every bill that passes the threshold with a signature that seems to read “Kafka was Here”.
No, Mr. Obama is the perfect follow-up act to this Bush Fellow who really screwed things up. Why, he’s got a nice smile and he can speak in multi-syllabic sentences and gooooolllleeee but he’s even got a very un-oligarchical Moslem name. The fact that the folks in Iowa think his campaign is funded by tens and twenties from grandma and grandpa grunt is just so Deliciously Mahhvelous too.
Change, be it ever so humble.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Thank you Mr. Sienna for brining up Edgar Steele, a non-patriot who will gladly kill America, if Jews die first.”
Just like it was in Vietnam, huh? And now in Iraq. Jews on the frontlines, fighting and bleeding for the rest of us. Very touching thougt, but very much opposite from the truth.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The chattering class is out of touch with the citizenry of America. Hispanics, White Christians and Jews aren’t going to vote for a radical liberal Black man with a Muslim name. Jews may understand glibness, but for white Christian Americans from the middle and Southern states Waylon Jennings is Lord Byron and Obamas’ Ivy League speecifying don’t account for nothin’. Millions of Hispanic Americans don’t even read let alone “presss one for English.” They’re not listening to him because they understand him and don’t like Blacks, anyway. Jews don’t like Muslims. In fact, America is currently at war with Islam on two fronts and opting for a third thanks to the influence of organized American Jewry. What we have here is a feel good McGovern campaign again. Pat Buchanan is most likely a McCain supporter because he’s a Republican and he doesn’t skateboard to work. Obama is a diversion set up to drive voters into the booth to click on McCain. Anyone who watched the Ron Paul Revolution butting it’s head against the brick wall of MSM sophistry and outright vote fraud knows the fix is in for McCain. The Soviet Socialist Realist inspired poster of Obama seen everywhere may be fun for the those who can afford to be ironic, but it’s bad branding and there’s a reason for that.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Correction: Hispanics aren’t listening to Barak Obama because the DON"T understand him.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.