Obama: Viable Leader or Political Caricature?

[Conan71]

After the 1988 Democratic National Convention, many came away feeling like they had not found their man for the White House in 1988, but with hope for their leading candidate for 1992.  Democrats realized they had little more do to than select a sacrificial lamb for the 1988 election.  The Iran-Contra scandal had not been enough to taint the Reagan administration from an un-official third term.

The Democrats nominated Michael Dukakis as their lack-luster choice for a presidential candidate to run against George H.W. Bush, the Vice President in one of the more successful and admired Presidential administrations in history.  What ensued in the November election was a total shellacking.  Bush won the popular vote by over 7 million votes, 53.4% to Dukakis' 45.6%.  Only 1% of the American vote went to fringe candidates.

More humiliating was the electoral vote count.  Bush won 40 states and 426 votes compared to 111 electoral votes from ten states plus Washington D.C. for Dukakis.  Still, there was optimistic improvement over the Democrat's attempt at the White House in 1984 where their candidate won 13 electoral votes carrying only his home state of Minnesota and D.C.  

The Democrats chose to run former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984.  He had been Vice President to Jimmy Carter, an administration nothing short of a total train wreck.  It was bad enough that incumbent Carter actually drew a serious opponent in the 1980 primaries:  Ted Kennedy.

The landmark peace agreement brokered by Carter between Israel and Egypt was over-shadowed by the 444 day Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  The economy had more than tanked.  The auto and steel industry were in steep decline.  Interest rates were at historic highs.  Inflation was in double digits.  There were energy shortages.  In spite of forming a Department of Energy, the U.S. was still no closer to declaring independence from OPEC.

Former U.S. industrial giants were filing bankruptcy or teetering on the brink of it under the weight of a prime rate near 20%.  The prime rate actually did hit 21.5% a month after the November 1980 election.  That is higher than the maximum-allowed consumer lending rates in many states!

After such a major turn-around in the economy, energy sectors, and foreign policy during the Reagan years, the Democrats were stumped as to how to stem the rolling GOP tide after 1988.  Scandals were plaguing Democratic House and Senate members.  Sentiment was starting to become more and more anti-Democrat.  It was going to be tough to overcome the momentum Bush I enjoyed as the understudy to a popular and effective president.

However, a miracle of sorts did occur at the 1988 Democratic convention.  A young southern governor, Bill Clinton, captured the imagination and adoration of Americans with his speech at the 1988 convention.  The speech itself was not remarkable and actually considered quite embarrassing and rambling.  However, there was some sort of humility and honest humanity in this Clinton fellow.  There was a charisma.  He was physically attractive.  He had come from nothing to become a very well-educated and influential man.  Aside from his humble beginnings, he was as close to JFK's political twin as existed at the time.

The Democrats found the next Jack Kennedy at the '88 convention.  Youth and vigor had worked in the past, why couldn't it in 1992?  It did.  

Many blame Bush I losing the White House to Ross Perot.  The fact of the matter is, Bill Clinton was elected President, not Perot.  Clinton had the charisma and drive which appeared lacking in Bush.  He also appeared more sane than Perot, a simple task by many accounts.

Bush was tired, he was ready to go back and tend his personal business interests back in Houston.  It appeared to many Bush did not want a second term as President, he obliged his party by running again anyhow.

The Democrats had found a caricature of JFK to get them back in the White House.  It didn't matter there was political and personal baggage dogging the Clintons to Washington.  The Democrats were running the White House again for the first time in 12 years and they had found that a young, good-looking outsider could oust an old-line insider from the White House.  That was even better in some ways than Kennedy who had a blue-blood pedigree.

Fast-forward to 2000.  Al Gore, the stiff, disingenuous, and un-charismatic scion of the Gore political dynasty was the leading Democratic candidate.  It was "his turn".  There were many successes in the Clinton years which history shows to have been an effective administration.  Yet, Gore struggled to overcome his association with Clinton foibles.  

Gore's worst sin was being Vice President in an administration which was plagued with personal scandals and investigations of business scandals involving the Clintons and close associates.  He was beaten in an election decided ultimately by the Supreme Court.  It didn't matter that Gore had come through every Clinton scandal un-scathed.  The far Christian right faction turned out in a full force back-lash to stop the "perversion and shenanigans" of the Clinton White House.

With a sharp political divide in 2004, the best the Democrats could hope for was a Supreme Court vote in their favor.  Democrats had shunned the Clintonesque appeal of John Edwards and relegated him to second fiddle status with a Senator from Massachusetts who had credibility issues and whiffs of blue blood much of the electorate detested- John Kerry.

Yet again, the Democrats found their next rock star at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, a dashing young African American by the name of Barack Obama.  He was born barely seven months into the Kennedy administration.  Obama delivered the keynote address at the '04 DNC as a state Senator from Illinois and U.S. Senate hopeful running against GOP carpet-bagger Alan Keyes.

Overnight, Obama went from being a political unknown to status as the next Bill Clinton.  The writing was on the wall.  Everyone remembered the moment Bill Clinton became a political rock star.  It had happened again.  

Obama has only three full years amongst the Washington power establishment.  The argument appears to be whether that's a positive or a negative.  Not only is he thought of as the next "Bill Clinton", he's also been officially anointed by the Kennedy family as the next "JFK".

There is little doubt that were his wife not running in an historic bid to become the first husband and wife team to have served as President, that Clinton would back his true political heir- Mr. Obama.  Hillary Clinton is no Kennedy, and she is, well, no Clinton either.

Does it matter that there is lingering prejudice in the minds of voters about electing a black man?  Does it matter that there are lingering doubts about electing a man raised in his formative years as a Muslim in these days of "Islamic Fascism" and Islamic terrorism?  Does it matter this is a time in American history where experience and decisiveness could be key to our further existence.

Is this a time for un-tested youthful idealism, or pragmatic leadership from the old guard?  Do we know enough about Barack Obama and what he stands for, or do we just know he's young and full of ideals?  Can we really afford it at this time in history?  Do we need another political rock star?

Edit: With the DNC over and the RNC almost over, I thought it was an appropriate time to bump this thread.  

[USRufnex]

A:  Viable leader.

[HoneySuckle]

What I don't get is this.  Why is Obama considered a black man when his mother was white???

Anyway, I'd rather try for a political rock star than a political chimp.  Been there, done that with the old Republican farts.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by HoneySuckle

What I don't get is this.  Why is Obama considered a black man when his mother was white???

Why, you ask?  Somewhere around 10mm black votes, would be my guess.

Why is Hillary running as a woman?  Her father was a man and there's speculation... eh, nevermind.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by HoneySuckle

What I don't get is this.  Why is Obama considered a black man when his mother was white???

Anyway, I'd rather try for a political rock star than a political chimp.  Been there, done that with the old Republican farts.

1. Hillary is the same age as George Bush (6 months difference).  I assume you will vote for Obama or Huckabee if you're looking for the youngest candidate.  McCain, we all assume, is out.

2. A person is considered a minority if they have 1/16th blood.  Most Native American's who receive government benefits and minority status look more like Hillary Clinton than Geronimo.  Blond hair, blue eyes, and a blood card for a recognized tribe gets you preferential treatment in many areas.

Same is true for African American.  If you can prove 1/16th African American blood you can technically claim minority status on applications, contracting purposes, etc.  To claim other rights you need to be 1/4th (to legally get peyote in the Native American church, for instance), but generally 1/16th is good to go.  For African American in particular, seldom is "proof" demanded and usually you just have to "look black."

What gets interesting is a law school buddy of mine was from Africa.  He was born and raised in South Africa and immigrated to the United States at the age of 23.  He nearly got thrown out of college when he indicated he was "African American" on his application, not fully realizing "Asian" meant from Asia, Pacific Islander meant from the Pacific Islands, Native American meant from the America's, but African American means "looks black."

Obama is at least 1/16th black.  I believe his father was 100% Africa (or as close as is reasonably possible in a country with millennia of contact with other nations), making him "half black."  Which is "more black" and certainly a closer connection to Africa than most "African Americans" in the country.
- - -

As a side note, if you have been in America for more than 2 generations odds are you have Native American ancestry to some degree.  This country has a long history of relations between all races, classes, and groups and at some point someone in your extended family has some blood from somewhere you are not aware of.  

My cousin would be described as "black" by anyone - brown skin, black curly hair, brown eyes and had a white mother and a black father (did not know his father, so I don't know "how black").  Yet his daughter has white skin and blond curly hair and would certainly be called white.  After a certain degree of dilution any dominant usually trait can give way.  

Does she still put down "black" on her applications - if so do they deny her the status because she doesn't look the roll?  What about someone who looks Native American and can prove a direct line to Native Americans in the 1800's - but wasn't on the Dawes rolls?  My friend is more African than most blacks, and is more of a minority than they are (fewer actual African immigrants than blacks) but gets no special treatment.  Some Native American tribes actually arrived in what is now the US after some European settlers colonized the East Coast (tribes moved South from Canada or North from Mexico) - technically aren't the Europeans more Native to the US than the others?  New Mexico is  majority Hispanic, yet they still get minority status.  Some of the Hawaiian Islands were not colonized by Natives until Whites arrived, should they maintain Native Status and rights on those islands?

Hell yes this conversation is offensive and yes it is pondering ridiculous fine points.  All great reason to disregard race in any and all official and personal capacities and in your question of who to vote in for the presidency.  Why not judge people on the content of character instead of the color of their skin, where they were born, or who their parents are?

[FOTD]

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

He is Dick Cheney's cousin for golly sakes!

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

He is Dick Cheney's cousin for golly sakes!

sounds like Ray Nagin's cup of milk chocolate.

"How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about,"

[Breadburner]

Can you say Howdy Doody...They look similar and have the same amount of experience.....

[guido911]

Sorry Conan, none of the above.

Obama: Infanticide-supporting politcal coward.

[USRufnex]

Guido911:  supports the criminalization of abortion.

That's what you believe, right?

Obama '08

[we vs us]

I predict that exactly what you think is going to happen with this thread will happen with this thread:  Democrats will think Obama's a viable leader, and Republicans will not.  The only thing that will have changed since Conan first posed this question in February is that the people who had been pissed off and hence squishy Republicans back in the winter will have magically felt their party renewed with McCain-Palin, and will feel comfortable voting Republican again. The real question is: does McCain-Palin really renew the brand, or are squishy Republicans looking for any reason whatsoever, no matter how flimsy, to come back to their party.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Guido911:  supports the criminalization of abortion.

That's what you believe, right?

Obama '08

Not at all. I do support criminalizing failures to provide life sustaining help to infants that survive the abortion, though. That was the point I was making. As you must know, Obama, while a state senator, had the opportunity to support the Born Alive statute in Illinois  which would have mandated the provision of such care. His actions prevented that law from passing (subsequent to his tenure as a state senator, Illinois eventually passed this law). Then, during this election, Obama was caught lying about his role in the failure of that statute.  Now you tell me, how do you justify his actions with that statute?

As for Roe, my position has always been that the federal courts had no business intervening in the abortion debate. This is, and in my opinion always was, a state issue. Period.

[USRufnex]

link other than newsbusters please...?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

link other than newsbusters please...?

Here's a CNN story on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY&feature=related

I assume CNN is okay with you.

[Hometown]

One thing about this election, a lot of unspoken standards have been tossed.  

It wasn't that long ago that even a condition like balding was expected to diminish a presidential candidate's chances.  Being divorced all but disqualified you.  Now we have several candidates pushing the envelope in all sorts of directions.

Does anyone else find it odd that the "Independents" that argued so forcefully against Clinton during our discussions here are now all staunch advocates for the Republican ticket?  Makes you wonder how Independent they really are.

And to the Republican defenders that are chastising folks that bring up sex, have you stopped to consider that the Republicans have based a couple of election cycles on politicizing gay relationships?