Obama’s Problems
Victor Davis Hanson on Obama's problems. Yes, he does have a number of them.
Under pressure to produce some facts and specifics, the Obama team is beginning to release a little on the economy, taxes, and new entitlements. But the problem is that Obama himself seems not familiar with the details, and still prefers talking only about hope and change. Wonks releasing details doesn't solve the problem. And it won't, until he, the candidate, can talk in serious fashion ex tempore about the specifics he wants to achieve.
The other problem could well be racial. His coalition initially was based on the notion that he would capture 60 percent of the black vote in a tough competition against the wife of our first honorific black president, and go on from there to cobble together a coalition with other minorities and elite whites. But his success seems to have been achieved with a slightly different calculus — 80-90 percent of the African-American vote, elite yuppie whites, and students and Moveon.org progressives.
The problem with that is illustrated by Hillary's last-ditch appeal to win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania with working-class whites and Hispanics. Since the agendas and past voting records of Obama and Clinton are nearly identical, and since he is the far more inspirational candidate, she hopes to tap into a growing resentment that his appeal is boutique for whites, and based on racial solidarity among African-Americans; the former turns off the working classes and the latter other minorities as well as poor whites. I think squaring that circle is every bit as problematic as McCain pacifying the conservative base. And the Democrats would worry about a candidate coming into the convention and beyond that lost the popular primary vote in the key November states of California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.
There's more about the problems in the world and some of the people who complain most loudly about the United States. And why they do so. They'd love to have a weak US President over for lunch – as the main course, so to speak.
A lot about this election cycle has not lived up to earlier predictions. Obama continues to astound with his ability to hang tough and win not a few contests. But if he gets the nod, it will be a different ball game. He'll have to explain in detail how his many proposed programs will not cause taxes to skyrocket for all Americans. In other words how des he pay for all of those wonderful ponies that he is promising? How does he raise staggering amounts of money to spend without bringing economic growth to a screeching halt? Or even send it reeling backwards.
By Mwalimu Daudi, February 15, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Way off-topic(sorry, Gaius), but a tiny-bit related at least. Michael Makovsky at The Weekly Standard draws an interesting parallel between John McCain and Winston Churchill:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/739qqkcd.asp
It may strike some as immodest to compare McCain to Churchill at this early point in time. Makovsky was not claiming that McCain was the next Churchill, but he was suggesting that McCain’s steadfast devotion to national security is a major plus that should not be minimized. Given the determination of Obama and Hilly the Hun’s single-minded devotion to carrying out al Qaeda’s wishes in Iraq and elsewhere, I found it an interesting article to think about.
By Gaius, February 15, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
It’s an interesting article and really is something to think about.
By K T Cat, February 15, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
Thanks for posting that link. I hadn’t seen it before. I keep thinking that McCain’s substance will triumph over Obama’s flash.
By pst314, February 15, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
"To be for ‘change’ in general is childish. Everything depends on the details."–Thomas Sowell, in the essay collection "Ever Wonder Why".
By Yuri, February 15, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
"bringing economic growth to a screeching halt? Or even send it reeling backwards."now that’s interesting. I though George W. just achieved that. We’re in recession or at least in the "screeching halt" phase, it seems. And no amount of tax cutting would help. What this country need, IMHO, is the population that does not feel entitled to good life (you have to earn it!) and large progressive taxes. Republicans like Eisenhower understood it and taxed the rich at 90%. The economic growth was just fine then. I think the brightest hope for this country is (these days mostly illegal Mexican) immigrants who seem to understand the value of hard manual labor and decent work ethics…
By Mwalimu Daudi, February 16, 2008 @ 12:58 am
Tax the rich at 90%? Like George Soros? And Ted Kennedy? And Hilly the Hun? And Ted Turner? And Michael Bloomberg? And Jay Rockefeller? And John Edwards? And Nancy Pelosi? And Harry Reid? And 99.99% of Hollywood? And 99.99% of the MSM airheads and executives? And any other rich liberal dolts that I have accidently left out?
I have a better idea. Anyone who calls for a 90% tax on "the rich" should themselves be taxed at 90%.
By syn, February 16, 2008 @ 5:09 am
I’ll add billionaire Teresa Heinz Kerry who managed to pay only 12% of her wealth. How can the rich be taxed at 90% when they have the money to establish things like trusts to hide their wealth or hire high powered tax attorney /accountant to find way of avoiding taxation?
That said; by any standard we’re actually in an economic paradise because taxes were cut for all those who value hard work and hold decent work ethics regretfully the drum of depressing fake news is creating an atmosphere that we’re all on the brink of disaster.
It isn’t the rich who keep this country running it’s the bread and butter people.
By Yuri, February 16, 2008 @ 7:43 am
Mwalimu Daudi: sure, all of them (and hedge fund managers & all those). And me, for all income I make in excess of a million dollars
. I was talking about the taxation rate in the top tax bracket, which was at 90% during Eisenhower presidency, you can look it up.
By Mwalimu Daudi, February 16, 2008 @ 10:38 am
Yuri – just pay your 90%. You don’t want to be a "tax chickenhawk" – one who demands that others pay while avoiding it himself?
By martian, February 16, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Back on the Obama topic, every time I see him talk I keep thinking about the old saw – he’s all sizzle and no steak! Where is the substance? Chris Wallace interviewed President Bush on Fox New Sunday last week and one of his questions was (Not verbatim but as close as I can get) "Do you think Obama has to be more specific about the changes he keeps saying he represents?" President Bush’s answer was a classic, "Absolutley. After all what do we really know about him up to this point? That he wants to attack Pakistan and hug Ahmadinejahd! He hasn’t been specific about anything else." And as true as that is, that’s the trouble.
I keep thinking that people are going to wake up and ealize that, as Obama said himself the other day "It’s true, I give a good speech." But that’s all he does – talk. Where’s the beef, Barrie?!!!!!!
By Yuri, February 16, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Mwalimu Daudi: you don;t seem to believe me – but I promise you, I’ll pay 90% on my income in the highest bracket if that’s the law. I’ll also feel that it is fair.
By NortonPete, February 16, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
Charging higher taxes on the people in higher income levels is a form of Socialism.
A flat tax is the only democratic solution and should include lemonade stands and multi-national corporations.
By Mwalimu Daudi, February 16, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
Yuri – you can always set a shining example by sending your 90% right now without waiting for the law. I am sure the government will not turn it down. And it will innoculate you against charges against being a "tax chickenhawk". Like Obama, I am here to offer salvation.
By Gaius, February 16, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
Sure you will, Yuri.