The facts are no more than what one can hear daily throughout all sides of the newsmedia. The government is unpopular, George Bush is a failed President and John McCain is more of the same, McCain is old and out-of-touch, America needs fresh credibility, Barack Obama is like a pop-star, he gets out-of-proportion praise in the news media.
Yet, as has also been discussed in the past day or two is the statistical dead heat in national polls between the two candidates. Historically, the Republican is behind in August. George Bush was behind John Kerry in August.
This has left many people wondering about how in the world is Barack Obama not sweeping? The answer is the one I would have offered from the start.
We don't know Barack Obama. And yet, it's more significant than that: Barack Obama seems to keep trying to keep us from knowing him. I'm not referring to despicable claims about Barack Obama's religious views and so forth, I'm talking about policy.
Even though he doesn't have much of a record (only 2 years in the Senate having done little, 'community organizer') what really hurts him is not standing for anything.
His supporters, of whom a friend or two of mine take part, would beg to differ. They say that he really stands for change, passionately. They would also claim that a brief perusal of his website would clarify his policy positions.
This is where I beg to differ. In Germany Barack Obama talked about breaking down walls of race and nationality and so forth. He keeps talking about how we need hope that our lives will get better. OUR LIVES ARE GOOD!
I admit that many people struggle, but struggle has been part of human society since the beginning. I'd argue that people struggle less today than ever before. Like any corporation addicted to growth, Barack Obama spreads the seeds of dissatisfaction so that we all feel like we need him when we don't. Because, after all, the only reason why anyone would need him (based on what he has campaigned on) is because we feel so tremendously dissatisfied.
I know that many people probably do feel dissatisfied. In fact, those with pointedly liberal perspectives must feel dissatisfied. That is why Barack Obama's policies - when actually articulated - are nothing more than traditional liberal democratic initiatives. Higher tax margins on the wealthy, creeping towards national health care, restrictive environment regulation, soft foreign policy (for the benefit of liberals I shall say 'inclusive'), etc.
Each of these positions is worth having a discussion about. In other words, maybe we need environment regulations that are tougher. However, there is no real debate occurring, just pandering (on both sides).
My political instincts tell me that, for the time being, most Americans want tough foreign policy until some of the conflicts we face are better resolved, pro-growth policies (such as drilling and low taxes) until the economy does better, and so forth.
That is, they might be 'wrong', but that is what they will vote for. Barack Obama seems to understand this, since he has changed many of his positions significantly after winning the primary.
Some would argue that he hasn't: "read the website". This is my take: Barack Obama has always had a set of ambiguous platitude quality policies that lean left. In debate and national discussion - during the primaries - he would say things in a way that made it seem like he supported a more extreme left agenda. For example: talking with Ahmadinejad. His real policy may have been normal - talk with foreign leaders before bombing them, but of course have conditions so that madness isn't tolerated.
In the infamous YouTube debate, the questioner said explicitly 'no pre-conditions whatsoever'. All Barack Obama said was, "I'll talk to Ahmadinejad, I'm not against that." That's in line with his 'normal' policy, but because he said 'yes' in response to the question, everybody took it to mean absolutely no pre-conditions. His campaign was silent as journalism tried to clarify the issue - allowing the democratic base to get that impression.
Now, he talks about pre-conditions, saying "That was always my policy."
In other words, Barack Obama is an absolute political opportunist. His policies are nothing new, in fact, there's a distinct chance they are completely flexible. He doesn't have much experience to speak of. He shouldn't even be a contender, but he's handsome and charming. He is also a good politician - honestly. For these reasons and maybe a couple more, he really should win.
But it's his race to lose. How?
Imagine the voters as they wait to hear what he has to say about actual issues.
Iraq surge?
No, no, maybe, well now I'm right anyway, so it doesn't matter that I was wrong and what I was against has made it possible for me to be right, can we not talk about this?
Drilling?
No, well, maybe, TEAR DOWN THE WALLS THAT DIVIDE US!
Healthcare?
You don't want national healthcare? Fine. All I want is healthcare for everyone, well, I really want to promise it.
Etc.
Barack Obama can't win until he stands for something. 'Change' doesn't mean anything undefined. Barack Obama needs a clear, cutting, consistent message about policies that he says he will fight for passionately. Ends don't cut it: "I envision the day when all Americans will have what they need." What does that even mean? Try: "Our healthcare system is broken, and only the financial power of the government will fix it so that all can receive quality healthcare. We need the government, we need the government, the government will save us from sickness". That message may not resonate, but that is what 'standing for something' looks like. John McCain, for example, stands for 'the Surge'. That's clear, even if you don't like it, it's what he stands for.
About messages not resonating: the Republicans don't have a healthcare stance, because they have nothing to stand for. The only stand against socialized medicine. This is why the Republicans don't do well with Blacks. The black community suffers from so many problems, when the Republicans are asked how they will resolve these problems all they have to say is "Well, we won't allow this, or that, and you can't do this. Pretty much, can't you guys just fix your own problems?" That doesn't win confidence. I personally don't agree with some of the Democratic answers for the black community, but I will readily admit that a black voter that cares about black issues really should have little initiative to vote Republican.
I suppose what I'm saying is that politicians often 'let issues be'. However, this is Barack Obama's race to lose because he seems to be letting all the issues be. Start being tough and specific man! People will call you flip-flop, but if you hammer it in now you might still have a chance. Well, I don't think he will, which is mostly why I don't want to vote for him.
Besides, his partial-birth abortion record in the Illinois State Senate is contemptible. Politics, mad ideology, I don't know, but his bill LET BORN BABIES DIE! Maybe that's an exaggeration, but it doesn't seem like it to me.
Now, John McCain. I have not liked him, from his snarky attitude on camera, to maybe, but, he won't say, calling his wife a ---!. He also, naturally, represents some of the same old thing.
However, I am warming to him (in part because I'm really cooling to Barack Obama). Here's why: regardless of what our future needs from us, at this precise moment we need someone who will finish the fight so to speak. It seems like we are really close, and 4 years of the surge-supporting wise tough guy (tough wise guy?) is what we need. In 4-8 years, we'll DEFINITELY needs something else, but John McCain would do a really good job of wrapping up what the last 8 years have given us.
I have in mind, yet again, to post on Iraq, and the environment. Both of those issues have so many nuanced parts that just more fighting and drilling are not going to solve our problems. But for the next 4 years, I think we need that still.
John McCain, whose campaign I once found ignorantly stubborn, is perhaps more politically sophisticated than I have realized. He keeps talking about supporting the surge, and in criticizing Barack Obama, he seems like a teenage girl at a sleepover party. It seems like he has lost his marbles. However, I realize now that his message has been so on target that it really must be registering. In the end, when people think about who supported the surge and who didn't and why, and what we want for the next 4 years - John McCain's stance will be crystal clear, and Barack Obama will seem a little more blurry. That's a powerful advantage.
So, I can't say I really support John McCain yet. However, I'm warming to him. Barack Obama I will not vote for. I may not vote at all.
That's what I have to say.
