Penn Primaries, Obama's b.s.?

The talk surrounding the Obama campaign's recent switch to more aggressive tactics is confusing. How much is he actually ratcheting up the rhetoric? This Washington Post article (front page), for example, is all about his "offensive." But it doesn't quote anything specific he has said.

And it's especially confusing because when Hillary plays straight out of the Karl Rove handbook and releases a fear mongering ad featuring Osama Bin Laden, it makes you want to speak out against it--it is only natural to speak out against that kind of crap.

So Obama's in a bit of a quagmire because he's spoke out repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly about not being caught up in the attacking part of campaigning, that he's more focused on the future and change and blah blah blah, but he's in danger of appearing like a wispy hope mongerer if he gets all aggressive now.

On the other hand, if there ever will be a time to be inconsistent and attack, it's now.

The Pennsylvania primary will probably play a big role in the nomination and if Obama can come out within 10 points of Clinton, it should be enough to carry him through.

But what do you do as a politician who claims to be focused on changing the way politics is run when the way politics is run is chipping at your ankles? Do you stoop down and succumb, taking off the gloves and shooting back? Or do you try and transcend it all, hoping and praying that the voters appreciate it?

Truthfully, no matter what he does I think Obama's going to lose Pennsylvania by more than 10 points, and I think we're in for a brutal summer in which it will be difficult for Obama to keep up his pace with the hungry, fanged Clinton campaign chomping at him.

Obama vs. Elitism

When I first read the other day that Clinton and McCain had begun attacking Obama as elitist, I was immediately impressed by the strength of the offensive.

I mean, first and foremost, both McCain and Clinton were attacking--democrat and republican, joined in their fight against Obama!

But mostly, I just think this is a good way to get at Obama.

"Duh," one friend and Obama supporter told me. "All presidential candidates are elitist. How much money do they make a year? Exactly. Besides, you want your president to be highly educated and run in high circles. If that makes him/her elitist, fine."

And I of course agree that I would prefer a cosmopolitan president to a provincial one, but we're still not getting to the main reason why I feel these shots at Obama are stronger than most.

The main reason relates in part to what makes Obama so appealing to college kids, travel abroad alumni, entry-level young urban pros, suburbia, and the intelligentsia. It's his rhetoric, his typical "why I want to be President" and "why I'd make a good President" speeches.

The fact is that the hope and optimism, while touching the above groups of people, have less affect on those who want to hear specific plans for making their lives better.

And I honestly believe that they'd rather be fed specific plans and be lied to than told all about change and yes we cans.

So much of Obama's impact lies in his ability to transcend the political realm as we know it. We love him for the way he doesn't go along with the typical candidate technique of lying out of your a-crack just to pick up votes. We love how his focus is on the deepest questions of American politics, be they race or Congressional ethics or Presidential power.

But you have to ask yourself this question: if you're a lower-middle class citizen, particularly hard hit by the current economic "issues" (to say the least), how taken are you with someone who wants to transcend the only system of help you've known your whole life?

Obama called these people bitter. And when you break it down his stance makes more sense--after all, if these people have only known one system and it has FAILED them time and again, why not support this cavalier cat who wants to change everything about the system?--but you have to wish he had chosen a less condescending and patronizing word as "bitter."

Although I have already professed my appreciation for Obama's rhetoric, I now find myself hoping he didn't make a colossal error here.

We know that Clinton and McCain are going to bring it now, with just over a week until the Pennsylvania primaries. The main question now is whether Obama can find a way to tweak his rhetoric so as to not only shield himself from the current attacks but also to win enough votes to take the state (he's currently behind in polls).

OR--will we see him lose but keep his significant delegate lead, keeping the fight alive until the convention, leaving McCain with all the time in the world to assemble his troops and reload.

Yikes.

Quit Barack-ing My Heart.

I'm not going to lie--I was excited last December when talk about Barack Obama announcing his bid to run for president finally got serious. I thought bsto would too--seeing as how he is a liberal from Illinois, I thought it'd be a no-brainer that he'd be overjoyed with the possibility.

I was wrong. I told him that he "didn't seem excited", to which he quickly replied "I'm not". I asked him "What are the other options? There aren't many other than Hillary".
"Barack is untested and he has done nothing that proves he deserves the right to run for the Democrats yet," Ben answered. "Hillary drew up a new health care initiative. Even though it got shot down, she is shaking things up," he said.

I took this to heart. Obama is only three years removed from serving in the Illinois legislature. So far, he is using his youth and exuberance as one of the better reasons to vote for him--he wants to be seen as the young outsider who is going to bring order to town.
The fact of the matter is that his youth might be the one thing that will cause trouble for him should he get elected. He is untested.

Do I think that he would do a good job? I used to think that the answer was an easy, straightforward, slam dunk "Yes". I'm not going back on my thoughts, but I am thinking about it more carefully.

Barack has made plenty of pretty speeches. He is charismatic. And, the fact that he is from Hawaii also really pushed me into his corner--and it made my mom proclaim that she would consider voting for the first time ever after meeting him at a Christmas Eve dinner. The fact that he is a strong African-American is also something that makes people favor him.

But, we must also look at the issues. Not looking at the issues is what got this country in trouble in 2000 and what definitely got this country into the quagmire it's in today as a result of the 2004 election. We can't vote on traits alone--we must look at where the candidates stand on the issues.

Will I vote for Barack? It's likely. It's also likely that I may vote for Hillary. We all know that Barack is charming and that Hillary has the teeth--but it is time to move past these things. We must start examining their stances on the issues and decide who best represents the Democrats. We have to stop letting Barack's charm make us bat our eyes and blush and we have to really start listening to what he has to say.