Choosing Obama: Rationale and Analysis

The most complicated thought process is understanding why someone would support Barack Obama. I think that generally speaking when you lay everything out, he's an incredibly hard sell. But there are those - those looking beyond merit and experience, who are squarely in the Obama camp.

Let's analyze their arguments to see what we come up with.

Rationale: I'm voting for Barack Obama because we've had eight years of George Bush and Republicans and we can do better.

Analysis: George Bush can take both credit and blame for a lot of things. This writer has found many faults with Bush as a leader, communicator and President. But President Bush's biggest downfall is his inability to articulate positions and ideals in a manner understood by his general audience. This gap hurt him and Republicans tremendously because principles and ideals could not be advanced by the man at the top. If you can't communicate economic policy or defense policy in other than non-complex terms, or draw analogies (or paint the picture) then its hard for folks to buy into your way of thinking. In fact, the Bush Administration has been mostly about the various military conflicts abroad, and less about domestic policy - which required far more attention than it received.

Few people, even on the Republican side, are sad to see George Bush leave office.

Republicans dug their own hole with the public by proving that they are no better than Democrats at dipping into the til to spend money on pet projects. Newt Gingrich spoke most plainly to this by saying that Republicans began to act like Democrats, except that the pork spending went into Republican districts. Republicans were promoted to control of Congress after putting together the Contract with America and committing to hold the line on frivolous spending. Republicans were seen to be no better than Democrats, and as memories are short - Republicans got the boot. And they deserved to get the boot. The problem with this argument though, is that Democrats have controlled Congress over the last two cycles and have been less productive then just about any Congress in the history of the the United States.

Democrats cannot claim to be part of the solution since their Congressional record is beyond dismal. Even with a poor communicator like George Bush in office, Democrats couldn't muster a counter-argument to any policy. Senate Leader Henry Reid (D) came across bitter and angry; and made himself irrelevant. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) seemed at best distracted and disengaged. Surely, no Congress has ever done so little with so much ammunition. And Democrat activists are coming unglued about the lost opportunty to have possibly advanced their agenda. And with both Presidential nominees coming from the U.S. Senate, we must admit that they are both part of the problem, and both fall within the 7% approval rating that Congress so justly deserves. That rating is far below the President's approval rating even at its lowest peak.

The other part of this faulty argument is that John McCain is not George Bush. In fact, the leadership styles are very different. Are the political stance different? Not quite sure on that one. We know that McCain has differed with his party on more than one occasion, but just because some agrees on where we need to get to, doesn't mean that they would follow the same path. In this respect, tying McCain to Bush is dishonest by any intellectual standard. While its true the platforms for Democrats and Republicans are different, approaches, plans and ideas should be evaluated on an individual basis, not a party line evaluation - particularly when it comes to John McCain.

Rationale: Obama is new and exciting. He's not an insider.

Analysis: It's true that Obama wasn't an insider at the start of his U.S. Senate career some 147 days ago before he was a Community Organizer. But one would have to say that he's probably just as much an insider as anyone is in the political establishment. The process to become a U.S. Senator, regardless of party, is rooted in favors, money, donations, pacs, special interest groups and a litany of other things that candidates seem to be always rallying against.

It's true he's new. But he's too new to know how things work. We do not elect dictators that come in on day one and start calling the shots. And moreover there are plenty of entrenched politicians in Congress, Lobbyists, and civilians lifers in every department that tend to be the ones that make the engine chug. Barack Obama has barely been in the Senate, he's barely proposed any solutions, and he's not managed to get a single piece of legislation approved by his peers. How do people expect him to come in and advance change on a global scale, when he cannot advance change in his own Chamber?

Rationale: Barack means change.

Analysis: Change to what? Change what? Barack Obama hasn't laid out any detail plans that reflect change we can believe in, let alone change we can't believe in. He's made the same general statements that most politicians wish to adhere to: better lives for middle class, getting along with our neighbors, ending the war on terror, better health care for everyone, on and on and on. In this respect, he's no different. But in one respect, given that the election is only two months away, he hasn't given out a hint of how all these wonderful goals can be achieved.

The only change we see is the one that he has gone out of his way to point out - that's he of a different ethnic background, and comes from a non-traditional background. But that alone isn't reason enough to select Obama.

Rationale: I hate Republicans. I'm voting for Obama.

Analysis: This by far is the most legitimate reason to vote for Barack Obama. The reason is that because behind this rationale, there is not need for discussion on merit, experience, resume, or detailed plans; its pure emotion and pure politics. There is no way to change the mind of someone that thinks like this (and there are those on the conservative side that will vote for McCain by the same argument).

Depending on where you come down on certain issues - we call such voters "one issue voters" that either McCain or Obama will be your candidate no matter what. For example, a die hard pro-abortion person will choose Obama, and a Christian conservative pro-life voter will choose McCain. But these issues are few and far between and make up a minority of the population. Their votes are already cast. It's the people in the middle - the independents, the loosely affiliated - those that may be members of a party but don't adhere to much of the platform, and those that are members of a party but may be so by chance or because they chose a party 20 some odd years ago.

If people really want new and untested. If they want to break the mold - they thing that seems to really excite the media because they enjoy a fairytale ending, then Obama will win in November. If Americans take the election seriously, and want the Nation governed by an experienced (work and real life) person, then McCain will get the nod.

My guess is that the college crowd (those who are still living in a bubble), the unions, the liberals, and minorities will show en masse for Obama. And the conservatives, the small business owners, the Christians, and the guy who watches his wallet will probably hold his nose and vote for McCain (against the unknown underachiever).

As for Palin and Biden. They add little; they are merely distractions from the main event.

The King's View on the results in Iowa...

It was certainly an interesting night, but before you read my diatribe on the so-called results out of Iowa, everyone - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents should read this piece from Rich Geraghty at NRO Online. Anyone who thinks that the Iowa Caucasus is anything but an illegitimate sampling of America is dead wrong. That isn't to say that the results aren't important - I mean after all, 40 delegates toward your total when your opponents have none is meaningful. And the result shouldn't be discounted.

The problem is clearly what emphasis the media has placed on the result. One result in one unorthodox, out of the mainstream state. And I don't mean just by their words, but by their actions. What do I mean? Well for example, news outlets have created undue importance of winning Iowa by deciding that if candidates don't reach a certain total, that they will no longer be welcome to make Sunday appearances on political programs like Meet the Press or This Week, nor will they be invited to debate their competition if they didn't receive above a certain percent. In the age of media which plays a vital role in decision making and influence on everything - from which candidates we chose to which detergent we clean our clothes with - it seems as if they are helping to decide who goes forward, and who's out.

Personally, I completely disagree with the primary process in the United States. "Early in secures the win" is no way to choose a nominee, nor is spreading it out over months and months so that the end results are determined long before the time the last primaries take place. And its disingenuous to Americans for three or four large states to hold all the marbles - this process almost gives credibility to those who don't participate because they feel their vote doesn't count. In essence, living in Connecticut and voting in the primary nearly doesn't count when candidates are eliminated from the field by the time your state gets a chance to participate.

Front runners love this system. Long ago, Hillary Clinton was captured on tape after a debate urging John Edwards to help her find a way to eliminate the long shot candidates - among those deemed long-shorts by her playbook was Barrack Obama. My view is that if you run, you should stay in through the end. This means the Ron Pauls, the Dennis Kucinichs, the Duncan Hunters, the Chris Dodds, almost do a disservice by leaving because 1) they add value to the debate by raising points that others don't (or won't), 2) their withdrawal solidifies the chance of a candidate that may have won more delegates so far - but who may not be the BEST choice for the party. Again, the whole Bob Dole sequence from several years ago is an example of bad choices by Republicans, and 3) it sort of cheats the residents of states in later primaries who could be strongly for a candidate who drops out which may have had created some momentum for debate at the convention.

And speaking of conventions. When is the last time that a convention was interesting enough to revoke the primary system's result? The answer is probably certainly before the age of media, and before millions were spent on one primary alone. The problem with the delegates is that in today's day and age, they are not independent thinkers, they are chosen and paid for by the winning candidate. Loyalty and being on the winning side solidifies where their vote at the convention would be cast. So fireworks at the convention is very unlikely - its a well-scripted, choreographed show with no surprises permitted. And this is probably why the GOP has seen establishment candidates being quasi-challenged by independent runs from outsiders who do more to siphon votes from Republicans than from Democrats. Even if it helps the Democrats to have Indepedents run, I can understand the reason. The biggest problem with the GOP is its lack of creativity and openness - no question. Party loyalits and establishment men are almost always the nominees - so with the doors slammed shut - you find Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and others making their own runs, and making the GOPs end game more difficult. Again, I can understand why.

The results...

OK, enough whining about an imperfect system. Many of you are saying, "King, you are just upset that your candidate could be one and done". And I admit, that is certainly a possibility by the way things look.

The biggest loser of the night was Mitt Romney. Not only was he my hopeful Presidential candidate, but he seems to have found the label as "the establishment's man" which makes the results in Iowa all the more juicy for media types who love to see David slay Goliath (hell, we all do, don't we?). Mitt needed a win in Iowa because New Hampshire is shaping up to be a McCain victory. This leaves Mitt with only Michigan left to win in order to remain a viable candidate. Reasonable people will agree that Florida and New York will most likely go to Guiliani who will lay low until those primaries are closer.

I still believe that Mitt Romney is the GOP's best candidate based on electability, experience, communication style, and resume against Hillary/Edwards/Obama in November. The rest of GOP field doesn't have the traction or already has a record for the Democrats to expose. Tuesday could mean the end Mitt if he places third, or if the convention becomes something it hasn't been for decades - a forum for debate and decision-making.

Hillary Clinton is a loser too, but I don't think she is eliminated from final victory. The Democratic race is going to remain interesting through the lesser states. All three candidates are great choices and I expect that Obama's surprise win agitates the establishment camps of Hillary and Edwards who saw themselves as the two battling for nomination, neck and neck over the next several months. An upstart, underfunded Obama deserves credit for pulling out a win and delivering about as much "shock and awe" as we've seen in recent decades. While you can't discount Edwards or Clinton whatsoever, he's a REAL problem for them now that he has momentum. Again, Iowa isn't America and as the first link I gave you earlier indicates, the Caucus system is not a legitimate sampling.

The Clinton camp has already started the comments that they don't know what Obama stands for, and in my view that translates to "we don't know how to combat this guy, so let's zone in on him, hope he makes a few gaffs and exploit them." That's what it means. If Obama is smart, he'll just keep doing what he's doing. He'll let the Clintons and Edwardses go negative (they have to) and he can just keep on staying positive, which could certainly secure him the nomination. Now if Obama wins New Hampshire, I bet he could win Michigan, and even other states.

Back to the GOP. Mike Huckabee's win in Iowa (and the perceived front runner declaration it gives him) is not necessarily a good thing for the GOP. Mike Huckabee just cannot be our nominee in November. I can't think of any match up I would rather NOT have than Huckleberry Huckabee yucking it up on our behalf against the firepower and energy of either a youthful Obama, or a fiery Edwards, or a strategic political chessplayer like Hillary (and friends).

And when key Democratic strategists like Susan Estrich go on television or write articles about how a Huckabee nomination will nearly guarantee a Democratic victory in November, they mean it. And they are right. Sorry Huck. Looking at you is looking at Dole II. If people at the Party level don't understand this than we deserve to lose.

If there is a winner in all of this, its the Democratic Party. No question. The GOP just suffered its first set back. In a field of Republicans, their best and perhaps only hope just got creamed. It's hard to excited about an old establishment man with health and anger issues from Arizona (McCain), A mild-mannered, uncharismatic soft-spoken Bible-thumper from Arkansas (Huckabee), or hard-nose New Yorker with a wild past who found conservatism yesterday (Guiliani).

And even though they say its not over until the fat lady sings, she just may be gearing up after Tuesday's New Hampshire primary.