About three months ago I offered some advice to Barack Obama. He did not take it. by rtbohan
(libertarian)
Thursday, August 14, 2008
I don't blame him for not taking it I was then, as now, a Ron Paul supporter writing an obscure column on the internet. But it was good advice, now being echoed by advisors he may be more inclined to listen to. And, if he does not listen, he is facing disaster.
In the article([link edited for length]), I said that Senator Obama had a good chance of winning in November if he gave some content to his promises of change. While this was not advice but an appraisal of his existing support and his chances of increasing it,I hoped he would continue to advocate change. Unfortunately, he has basically forsaken change for the same old politics (and the same old professional political advisors). This is seen by the media and some of his supporters as a necessary appeal to the center of the political spectrum. But I do not believe that bigger and better wars, accompanied by support of discredited government programs will appeal to a nation ready for change.
In May I said that, in addition to demonstrating that the mantra of "Change" was something of substance and was not just a convenient slogan-- this is something Senator Obama has failed to do--he had to avoid three dangers.
The first need, I said, was to avoid the appearance of arrogance, something Senator Obama had not done since he took the lead in the race for the nomination. His parody of the presidential seal as his campaign logo and his insistence on the rental of a stadium for his acceptance speech were both idiotic, but they were minor idiocies. Arrogance becomes a problem when a candidate's supporters and potential supporters see signs that the candidate is simply using them and manipulating them rather than responding to their needs and appreciating the support they give him.
The height of this kind of arrogance (so far) was reached by the e-mail to his supporters about his choice for the vice presidency( [link edited for length] . The e-mail says that, as a reward for their support, he will let them know "first" who the vice presidential candidate will be. He doesn't say how much of a lead he will give them for placing bets on the vice presidentaial nominee, but there is a price, other than their past support, for being the first to know. That price is forwarding the e-mail to five of their friends, who will then also be the "first" to know, and, if successful, will expand the campaign's contact list for donations and support five=fold. This is not a favor to supporters, this is abuse. A candidate--any candidate--should regard his supporters as voters and as citizens with policy concerns, not as bird dogs.
The second thing I said Obama should avoid was the big state fallacy, which doomed the candidacies of Gore, Kerry and Clinton. So far, the Obama campaign has indicated a desire to run a truly national campaign. The press interprets the plan to spend money on more of the smaller states as the exploitation of the superior fundraising success of the Democrats this election year. They may be right. Whether Obama is planning to make a national campaign or relying on the strategy of capturing the election through putting together the larger states to achieve a majority of the electoral votes will be clear when the candidate's personal campaign schedule is announced. It is less the candidate's money than the candidate's visits which will determine whether he is competitive across the country.
The third piece of advice I offered was a three pronged warning to avoid the plague of the Clintons. I suggested especically that he A. Should not help Senator Clinton to pay her campaign debts; B. Should not choose her as a candidate for Vice President; C. Should not ask the Clintons to campaign for him. Of these three, Senator Obama appears to have accepted only one, on the Vice Presiency, but is reported to be leaning toward naming long time Clinton supporter, Senator Bayh of Indiana, for the Vice Presidency.
He did offer help to Senator Clinton in repaying her campaign debt. A letter was sent to Obama supporters urging them to contribute to Senator Clinton's campaign, although his supporters, to a large extent, showed better sense than the candidate himself([link edited for length]. So far, Clinton's response to Obama's offer to help her with her debt has been to complain that she has given far more support to his campaign than he has given to hers. Of course, this should be true, since he is apparently going to be the nominee of her party for the Presidency. But the Clinton party loyalty has always been limited to their own candidacy.
The third element was that Senatory Obama should not ask the Clintons to campaign for him. He disregarded this advice, and he is seeing, as I said he would, the damage that the Clintons can do campaigning for a candidate they very much want to see lose. Denied the Vice Presidential nomination, Senator Clinton has actively supported, if she did not initiate, a move to place her name in nomination at the convention as a candidate for president([link edited for length] As a "supporter" of Senator Obama, she has been allowed to place in the Party's platform a condemnation of the "demeaning of women candidates" but the press, which is a platform for declaring that she was denied the nomination by the biased coverage of the campaign([link edited for length]).
Her campaign staff and her husband have also been demonstrating their support for the party's probable nominee. Led by Mark Penn, the Clinton staff have been releasing a plan of campaign against Obama portraying him as being un-American. While the staff says that she rejected this campaign, she certainly adopted some of the phrases associated with it, and of course it has now been made available to Senator McCain with the effective imprimatur of Senator Clinton. Bill Clinton supposedly made peace with Obama and promised to support him, but his support so far has consisted of complaints that people are calling him a racist because of his speeches portraying Obama as "the Black candidate" and attacks on Representative James Clyburn, the minority whip for betrayal of the former president. Not terribly supportive operations. Representative Clyburn, like other Obama supporters, did not follow Senator Obama's policy of trying to appease the Clintons([link edited for length])
In May, I still hoped that Obama was sincere in his promises of change. I did not support much of his platform, but I did believe that he might curb the imperialism of the current administration, work toward a government where the concern of the governors was for the good of the country rather than their re-election, and end the baleful influence of the Clintons and the Clintonistas in the Democratic Party. I no longer have those hopes. With better advisors during the coming campaign than he now has, he may still be able to win the election. But I no longer see a differnce betwen Obama and McCain.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of rtbohan only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
rtbohan is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
rtbohan - I very much enjoy reading your articles and links, but I do have a pet peeve when I read your articles. Not because it effects what I think, but because I think it may sometimes effect others when they read it. When you make spelling errors like those above, it detracts from the point you are making and is not too professional. That said, we should be allowed a typo here and there though! Thumbs up!
Sorry to say, but you are telling an untruth when you say that “there is a price, other than their past support, for being the first to know. That price is forwarding the e-mail to five of their friends, who will then also be the ‘first’ to know, and, if successful, will expand the campaign's contact list for donations and support five=fold.”
Rtbohan, either you have been misinformed or you are deliberately lying, since as an Obama supporter I know what that early VP notification email stated, since I received one. No where in the email was I asked to give five email addresses in exchange for the opportunity to receive an early text or email message of Barack’s choice for vice president. In fact, only after I received verification that I would receive the early notification was I sent to another web page that asked me to consider giving the campaign the email addresses of friends who might also be interested in an early VP notification. The campaign frequently asks for the email addresses of friends, but for the first time I gave them ten email addresses, not five.
Please get your facts straight. It is unintelligent to tell someone that they see a cat when a dog is standing before them. Unfortunately, too many conservatives frequently try to mislead people like this. I am surprise to see a libertarian like your self behave in this manner.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
