You Knew It Was Coming

What if Obama is not elected President?

Might it be because his policies are too liberal for the average Joe?  Because he has far less experience than the Republican candidate?  Because Obama has a modicum of connection to the military, in contrast to McCain?  Because people are worried about his potential spending?  Because they think his position on abortion is simply too extreme?  Because they think that he is a bit too aloof and contemplative, and not enough of a leader?

Naw.  If Obama doesn't secure the Presidency, it's 'cause the rest of us are a bunch of racists.

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.

Obama may win the election, and all of the above shall be moot.  If, however, he does not - expressions like this one will be with us for a long time to come.

Addendum:  Just to clarify, please do not infer from my above post that I think racism has died and gone to Hell.  It has not.  I am certain that Obama will lose some votes due to racism - just as some black folks will vote for Obama because of the color of his skin and not because of the content of his policies.  But - if Obama does not win, it cannot all be chalked up to racism.

Comments

[Greg]

Might it be because his policies are too liberal for the average Joe?

I know this is a talking point you use, but can you please name the liberal policies he favors that are out of touch with the majority of Americans?

Because Obama has a modicum of connection to the military, in contrast to McCain?

This did not seem to be a problem for those when it came between John Kerry who served and George Bush who was AWOL.

Because people are worried about his potential spending?

Once again another talking point you have no way of proving. Here is some food for thought:

McCain Doesn't Understand Arithmetic.
The Washington Times editorialized that
"Regrettably, Mr. McCain's entire balanced-budget fiscal policy, such as it is, almost certainly is built on smoke and mirrors. We also understand arithmetic, and we're concerned that Mr. McCain does not. His math doesn't add up. Mr. McCain needs to provide much more detailed information about how he intends to balance the budget." [Washington Times, 4/18/08]

McCain Not Explaining How To Pay For Tax Cuts.
The Wall Street Journal wrote "But Mr. McCain draws criticism from budget-balancers for refusing to provide offsets to his biggest-ticket item: extending the Bush tax cuts past their scheduled 2010 expiration. That alone will cost about $270 billion a year? The Bush tax cuts included an expiration date when they were passed, and if they are renewed without offsetting cuts, the lost revenue will add to the deficit according to standard budget accounting rules." [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/2008]

Math Doesn't Work.
NBC News reported that "critics and some economists argue McCain's math is wrong, that his plan would tilt toward the wealthy, swell the deficit and not trim enough." [NBC Nightly News, 4/17/08]

How Can He Pay For It?
ABC News broadcasted that "critics question how McCain expects to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enact massive tax cuts, and balance the budget. McCain says he can do it."
[ABC World News Tonight, 4/15/08]

Where Will The Money Come From?
Marc Ambinder headlined his post "McCain's
Economy: Where Will The Money Come From?" and noted that McCain didn't really answer the question.
[Marc Ambinder, TheAtlantic.com, 4/16/08,]

Economic Conservatives Say "Foolish." Conservatives "don't like McCain's gas tax holiday they find it foolish and they wonder where McCain would find the money for it."
[Marc Ambinder, TheAtlantic.com, 4/16/08]

Because they think that he is a bit too aloof and contemplative, and not enough of a leader?

Let's see a self made man who bypassed corporate wealth to serve as a community organizer is aloof? While the man who has no clue to how many homes he owns is a man of the people. Your kidding aren't you?

The fact is there are many reason why people vote the way they vote. All you did was put up a false smoke screen and false reasons why someone would not vote for Obama instead of reasons why people should vote for McCain. Now one might like McCain experience, and that he has and I do not fault anyone for voting that way. People might be more comfortable with McCain as a President than Obama, again that is all fair game. Heck I even drank the McCain Kool-Aid of 2000, but this is a far cry of the man of 2000. There are reasons why someone votes the way they vote, and I cannot go into the mind of those that vote, but the stuff you throw out there, stuff without a bit of context to it is simply false without something to back up what you state.

If you look at this campaign from the primaries until now. The American people have proven to have been fickle and naive by letting trite scare tactic politics work, and by maintaining a content level of ignorance concerning the facts, while simultaneously believing any false garbage that might justify their ignorance.

I consistently wonder "Are we serious enough?", what I'm really asking is, "Are we mature enough?". Are we, as a society, mature enough not to bastardize Democracy by casting an uninformed vote? I say this because reality is starting to hit home to many Americans. Now that their homes have been foreclosed and their sons or daughters are being sent back for a fourth tour of duty they are motivated to pay attention before they vote? It is sad but true, the drama of American politics can keep the people entertained as long as they aren't scared about the future, their future.

Am I asking too much that people at least read up on the candidates? I mean how hard is it to read policy platforms? How hard is it to listen to the candidates talk? In the end I hope we are finally too smart to go through this garbage again. While I am hopeful, I am far from being optimistic. As long as people see elections as some sort of beauty pageant, where candidates are rated on BS answers and where spin substitute fact. Look it isn't only the voters, it's also the media who have turned news into entertainment, who have turned fact checking into spin reporting.

How low have we as a country have sunk, when we can turn someone's intelligence into a negative? How low have we sunk when working your way to a top school and excelling at the school would be a negative? How insane have we gotten that a person who some would label 'elite' would be a negative? If you had a loved one who needed open heart surgery would you want the 'elite' doctor, or the one who finished near last in his class? And yet people will use this as negative criteria for the position of the President of the United States. Again I ask, how low have we sunk when this could become a negative?

How much longer can the majority of the American people vote against their interest?

It seems their current economic pain isn't bad enough, because they are still willing to follow a man who's economic policy is almost identical to Bush's, who's economic team is Bush's. In all too many cases the Presidential campaign are NOT about policy. Well, there is the root of all of America's problems: politics not being about policy. Some of the victims of voter immaturity: Al Gore, Ann Richards, Max Cleland, John Kerry.

Well time for me to get off my soap box and move on.

[Peg]

Greg - sorry that you had to go through all this for nothing. But - if you read carefully, I said absolutely nothing, really, about Obama's skills or faults. Questions are not assertions; they are questions.

My only point of the above is that some people will choose to vote for McCain over Obama for the content behind each of the questions raised. You may think that these people are incorrect - and, you may be correct.

The point, nevertheless, is not whether they are right or you are right. The point is that these people will be choosing to vote because of content and ideas and beliefs about politics; not because one candidate is white and one candidate is black.

As for the houses; actually, John McCain owns no houses. His wife owns them, and they have separate finances from a prenuptual agreement. As some of the properties are investment properties that McCain doesn't even manage, it would be silly for him to know about or be preoccupied with them.

And I wonder; when John Kerry was running for President, did the wealth of his wife seem to knock Kerry out of the running for office?

I think not.

[Jammen]

Peg;

"Questions are not assertions; they are questions."

Yeah right! Just like Fox news "Is Obama a terrorist? Stay tuned for more".

"Is Peg Kaplan really just a sockpuppet for
Ann Coulter?" What do you think, America?

Peg, I hope you are seeing that it depends on what questions you are asking.

[Peg]

No, Jammen; questions are not assertions.

Are there some people who will not vote for McCain because they think he's too old? Some who don't like his pro-life stance? Some who are bothered by his votes on McCain-Feingold - or the Iraq war?

Yes to all - just as the answer is "yes to all" to what I posted above.

Why people like you and Greg are fearful of the truth and are unable to accept what is being stated and must twist it into something beyond what it is I cannot understand.

There are people who will not vote for each candidate due in part to everything that I stated in my questions.

That this is the case, however, does not mean that the candidates themselves are not decent people. It only means that these are reasons why some voters will reject them.