The Obama doom and gloom vibe is not rooted just in poll numbers, though those are fairly bad, and it’s not so much the ‘surprised leftist’ complaint that he has ‘tacked right’ in recent weeks and months (he actually hasn’t, he was already there (but that’s another, deleted by Peeder diary)).
No, it’s the smell of fear, insecurity and typical Dem conventional wisdom. The vice president thing showed the real Obama (one I’ve been talking about for months (in many many deleted by Peeder diaries)), an insecure guy very strictly obedient to wuss party conventional wisdom. The recent sky-is-falling was “They say WE’RE WEAK ON FOREIGN POLICY!!!!” and so (showing poor judgment even there) Obama chose the insider-as-parody Biden.
Then McCain and his advisers, showing good strategic judgment, chose a candidate who resonates with and amplifies McCain’s maverick theme. (Biden resonates only to the sound of his own voice.) Obama should’ve chosen as McCain did, a candidate like Bill Richardson who resonates with and amplifies Obama’s (apparent) ‘ethnics r the shit’ message.
Spengler, an asshole over at atimes.com, sums up:
McCain’s choice of vice presidential candidate made obvious after the fact what the party professionals felt in their fingertips at the stadium extravaganza [Obama’s acceptance speech] yesterday: rejecting Clinton [well, Spengler is wrong on a lot of things] in favor of the colorless, unpopular, tangle-tongued Washington perennial Joe Biden was a statement of weakness. McCain’s selection was a statement of strength. America’s voters will forgive many things in a politician, including sexual misconduct, but they will not forgive weakness.
That is why McCain will win in November, and by a landslide, barring some unforeseen event [again, imho Spengler is wrong here and with the economy sucking so bad this still looks like a close election]. Obama [has] a fatally insecure personality. American voters are not intellectual, but they are shrewd, like animals. They can smell insecurity, and the convention stank of it. Obama’s prospective defeat is entirely of its own making. No one is more surprised than Republican strategists, who were convinced just weeks ago that a weakening economy ensured a Democratic victory. . . .
McCain doesn’t have a tenth of Obama’s synaptic fire-power, but he is a nasty old sailor who knows when to come about for a broadside. Given Obama’s defensive, even wimpy selection of a running-mate, McCain’s choice was obvious. He picked the available candidate most like himself: a maverick with impeccable reform credentials, a risk-seeking commercial fisherwoman and huntress married to a marathon snowmobile racer who carries a steelworkers union card. The Democratic order of battle was to tie McCain to the Bush administration and attack McCain by attacking Bush. With Palin on the ticket, McCain has re-emerged as the maverick he really is.
As I said, Spengler’s an asshole: McCain’s as much a maverick as James Garner was, i.e. he plays one on TV (well, in that lame-ass movie with Jodie Foster too). And Palin’s ‘reform credentials’ are all bullshit. But, anyway, Spengler’s right about McCain refurbishing his image and Obama messing up his (the article also goes into Spengler’s psycho-analysis of Obama, which is a worthwhile read imho).
FAIRLEFT’S Predictable ADVICE TO OBAMA:
Well, not that I give much of a shit but there is a solution, and that is to get very plain old Hillary Clinton faux populist and go to work hammering specific problems with McCain’s platform. By far the most effective attack would be on McCain’s Social Security stances, his flip flops. Obama has put his toe in that water, but, I mean, a Dem Party poll showing McCain 5 points ahead in Florida is inexcusable when he favors privatization. McCain has made several statements in favor of Bush’s privatization plans (e.g., “as part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it – along the lines of what President Bush proposed.”), and Obama needs to scare geezer voters with that while effectively retying McCain to Bush (you can’t just say it or show pictures, you have to tie him to Bush explicitly).
But don’t expect Obama to go there, or at least don’t expect him to move beyond his beloved generalities into effective attack ads. Kerry similarly didn’t go there with any force in 2004 when Bush was similarly profoundly vulnerable. The reason is obvious, Barry’s financial backers (like Kerry’s in 2004) agree with Bush, McCain, Obama and the corrupt conventional wisdom, that there will be a cutting back and cutting up of Social Security after the election, in a grand, “like Tip O’Neill did with Reagan” negotiation, with some of the carcass fed to Wall Street. Yes, both candidates have fondly recalled that rape of the working and middle classes.
Also at http://www.freespeechzoneblog.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=155
