Is Obama Another Dukakis? By Christopher Hitchens

[guitarist]

From England's favorite former radical-socialist-Leftist-ideologue-turned-Right-wing-intellectual-anti-Islamofacist-bullhorn-hawk Chris Hitchens, in Slate Magazine:

Is Obama Another Dukakis?
WHY IS OBAMA SO VAPID, HESITANT, AND GUTLESS?
By Christopher Hitchens
Updated Monday, Sept. 22, 2008, at 12:17 PM ET

Last week really ought to have been the end of the McCain campaign. With the whole country feeling (and its financial class acting) as if we lived in a sweltering, bankrupt banana republic, and with this misery added to the generally Belarusian atmosphere that surrounds any American trying to board a train, catch a plane, fill a prescription, or get a public servant or private practitioner on the phone, it was surely the moment for the supposedly reform candidate to assume a commanding position. And the Republican nominee virtually volunteered to assist that outcome by making an idiot of himself several times over, moving from bovine and Panglossian serenity about the state of the many, many crippled markets to sudden bursts of pointless hyperactivity such as the irrelevant demand to sack the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

And yet, and unless I am about to miss some delayed "groundswell" or mood shift, none of this has translated into any measurable advantage for the Democrat. There are three possible reasons for such a huge failure on Barack Obama's part. The first, and the most widely canvassed, is that he is too nice, too innocent, too honest, and too decent to get down in the arena and trade bloody thrusts with the right-wing enemy. (This is rapidly becoming the story line that will achieve mythic status, along with allegations of racial and religious rumor-mongering, if he actually loses in November.) The second is that crisis and difficulty, at home and abroad, sometimes make electors slightly more likely to trust the existing establishment, or some version of it, than any challenger or newcomer, however slight. The third is that Obama does not, and perhaps even cannot, represent "change" for the very simple reason that the Democrats are a status quo party.

To analyze this is to be obliged to balance some of the qualities of Obama's own personality with some of the characteristics of his party. Here's a swift test. Be honest. What sentence can you quote from his convention speech in Denver? I thought so. All right, what about his big rally speech in Berlin? Just as I guessed. OK, help me out: Surely you can manage to cite a line or two from his imperishable address on race (compared by some liberal academics to Gettysburg itself) in Philadelphia? No, not the line about his white grandmother. Some other line. Oh, dear. Now do you see what I mean?

Why is Obama so vapid and hesitant and gutless? Why, to put it another way, does he risk going into political history as a dusky Dukakis? Well, after the self-imposed Jeremiah Wright nightmare, he can't afford any more militancy, or militant-sounding stuff, even if it might be justified. His other problems are self-inflicted or party-inflicted as well. He couldn't have picked a gifted Democratic woman as his running mate, because he couldn't have chosen a female who wasn't the ever-present Sen. Clinton, and so he handed the free gift of doing so to his Republican opponent (whose own choice has set up a screech from the liberals like nothing I have heard since the nomination of Clarence Thomas). So the unquantifiable yet important "atmospherics" of politics, with all their little X factors, belong at present to the other team.

The Dukakis comparison is, of course, a cruel one, but it raises a couple more questions that must be faced. We are told by outraged Democrats that many voters still believe, thanks to some smear job, that Sen. Obama is a Muslim. Yet who is the most famous source of this supposedly appalling libel (as if an American candidate cannot be of any religion or none)? Absent any anonymous whispering campaign, the person who did most to insinuate the idea in public—"There is nothing to base that on. As far as I know"—was Obama's fellow Democrat and the junior senator from New York. It was much the same in 1988, when Al Gore brought up the Dukakis furlough program, later to be made infamous by the name Willie Horton, against the hapless governor of Massachusetts who was then his rival for the nomination.

By the end of that grueling campaign season, a lot of us had got the idea that Dukakis actually wanted to lose—or was at the very least scared of winning. Why do I sometimes get the same idea about Obama? To put it a touch more precisely, what I suspect in his case is that he had no idea of winning this time around. He was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008, and then the enthusiasm of his supporters (and the weird coincidence of a strong John Edwards showing in Iowa) put him at the front of the pack. Yet, having suddenly got the leadership position, he hadn't the faintest idea what to do with it or what to do about it.

Look at the record, and at Obama's replies to essential and pressing questions. The surge in Iraq? I'll answer that only if you insist. The credit crunch? Please may I be photographed with Bill Clinton's economic team? Georgia? After you, please, Sen. McCain. A vice-presidential nominee? What about a guy who, despite his various qualities, is picked because he has almost no enemies among Democratic interest groups?

I ran into a rather clever Republican operative at the airport last week, who pointed out to me that this ought by rights to be a Democratic Party year across the board, from the White House to the Congress to the gubernatorial races. But there was a crucial energy leak, and it came from the very top. More people doubted Obama's qualifications for the presidency in September than had told the pollsters they had doubted these credentials in July. "So what he ought to do," smiled this man, "is spend his time closing that gap and less time attacking McCain." Obama's party hacks, increasingly white and even green about the gills, are telling him to do the opposite. I suppose this could even mean that Sarah Palin, down the road, will end up holding the door open for Hillary Clinton. Such joy!

[$tevie]

He was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008, and then the enthusiasm of his supporters (and the weird coincidence of a strong John Edwards showing in Iowa) put him at the front of the pack.

The idea that Obama was just making a trial run could be true. The operative term here, however, is the enthusiasm of his supporters. Remember when Ms. Clinton was a shoo-in? The polls and pundits let us down so many times during the primary season that I can hardly be bothered to pay attention any longer.

Anyhow, I am constitutionally incapable of agreeing with Christopher Hitchens. Pshaw.

[freeradical]

So - this falls under "Be careful of what you wish for"?

[guitarist]

Yes, it's a vexing issue, not because Barry doesn't have the potential to be a confident and well-seasoned National campaigner and winning Democratic warrior, but because he's just slightly underripe. History delivered him the opportunity earlier than might have been ideal; the Democratic party has its first opportunity to mount a pure candidate, instead of a compromise candidate. A tired and unpopular Presidency gave Democrats the luxury of supporting a candidate they actually want, instead of one they have to reluctantly tolerate.

The Republicans, on the defensive, had to mount the compromise candidate, a Republicrat independent. McCain wouldn't have emerged unless his party was on the ropes. They couldn't put up an evangelical, neo-con, or a purist conservative, after the wreckage of the last eight years, they didn't have the luxury.

The Democrats haven't exactly earned much affection from voters in recent years, either, Congressional disapproval is as bad as Presidential. Obama's personality, ascendancy story, and eloquent visionary rhetoric alone have the burden of repackaging and selling his unoriginal message. His policies aren't new, they're conventional orthodox pre-Clinton boilerplate. If Obama had had more gravitas, historical force alone could blow past that vacuum. His leadership strength would be less of an issue, his lead would be nearly unquestionable.

I still think it's smart for his party to mount the candidate they want, instead of compromising, even if the opportunity came earlier than than he and his team was really prepared for. If McCain loses, he loses permanently. Not so for Obama, he has a bright future either way.

[rgG]

I read an article in the paper the other day that had a very good point. It said that the first rule of a successful campaign/candidate is to stay on point. Never deviate from the message. If your point is say that the sky is red, then that is your answer to every question, no matter what the question, just get that one point across.

The article went on to say that the Democrats have not stayed on point/message. The latest evidence is the way they were thrown off by the whole Sara Palin thing. They should have stayed on point and ignored all the hoopla, but they didn't.

Now, I saw Hillary Clinton give an interview on CNBC today about the crisis on Wall Street. The interviewer wanted to wrap up the interview on a lighter note and asked Hillary if she thought the idea of equating women with lipstick in the campaign was demeaning to women. Hillary answered that she thought the Democrats should be in the White House in January, that we could not take any more of the same from the Republicans. She went on and on and finally said that she wears lipstick. I immediately thought of that article, no matter what the question, stay on point, the sky is red. Hillary at least has apparently learned the first rule of campaigning. It may not have been enough to get her the nomination, but she stayed on point.

[Mike Sellers]

guitarist wrote: He was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008

That's taking an awfully big leap there. This has always been poised to be a big year for a Democratic Presidential candidate. If Obama didn't make it this year, his next best shot would have been 2016, not 2012.

[mrbigstuff]

We, the voting populace of this country, are generally conservative and, since it is "independents" - or, more correctly, unenrolled voters - that decide the fate of any Presidential race, the pendulum will always swing to the right (with the possible exception of 1976). Hitchens certainly does understand this, but there's almost no real story, nothing to hang his scarf on. So we now we get this half-hearted attempt at linking Obama with a known quantity, a person we know to be synonymous with failure (who, btw, is a real intellectual and a great speaker, so he does have that in common with Obama). It's a blithe analysis and rather glib, IMO.

[mattkime]

first, the polls are swinging back into obama's favor. second, if obama is vapid and hesitant and gutless, what is mccain? palin isn't so gutsy once you consider that she's loved by the religious right.

[guitarist]

mrbigstuff wrote: Hitchens certainly does understand this, but there's almost no real story, nothing to hang his scarf on.

A third consecutive term is usually a hopeless cause for any party. That this is a close race at all is the story, worthy of a comparison to another ponderous Democratic candidate who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. That's a fairly strong hook for Hitchens to hang his hat, coat, and scarf on. Obama--or any opposition party candidate with a built-in advantage like this--should have a commanding lead, not a tentative one. There's zero reason for independents to "swing to the right" in a climate like this. GWBush, a universally disliked two-termer, hasn't exactly set the stage for a Republican win.

So we now we get this half-hearted attempt at linking Obama with a known quantity, a person we know to be synonymous with failure (who, btw, is a real intellectual and a great speaker, so he does have that in common with Obama). It's a blithe analysis and rather glib, IMO.

Comparing Dukakis' oratorial skills to Obama's is a unique minority point of view. LOL

I agree that by the standards of Hitchens usual writing, this is a minor trifle. Not deeply original or insightful. The guy can usually write two scholarly books and three critical essays on a single glass of scotch. This was a mere burp between deadlines.

mattkim wrote:
if obama is vapid and hesitant and gutless, what is mccain?

None of the above? Until the day he announced his candidacy, McCain was a darling of Democratic centrists, respected for his experience, common-sense, and willingness to flip off fellow Republicans when the situation called for it. I'd like to see Obama start flipping off Democratic special interests, and grow a pair.

[$tevie]

No, McCain was a darling of Democratic centrists about 8 years ago. Then he sold his soul to the neocons, changed his positions to placate them, and the centrists lost interest.