Back in the Presidential race of 1992, George H.W. Bush Sr. was running against a young upstart Governor from Arkansas named William Jefferson Clinton (as well as against Ross Perot). The race was not going the way of the challenger despite Bush Sr. having had a divisive Middle East War, a failing economy and a banking crisis called the S&L Scandal. One day a nearly unknown Clinton advisor named James Carville hung a sign on the door of Governor Clinton's "war room". The sign read simply, "It's the economy, Stupid." Clinton took the advise to heart and the rest is history.Fast forward to the present time and we see history replaying itself once again. This time the young upstart is named Senator Barrack Obama and the Steward of the past administration is Senator John McCain. But the issue is still the same. The economy.
As our jittery market sways back and forth like a tire on a frayed rope ready to break, Americans are pushing the economy to the front of the issue line. This was most evident in the first Presidential Debate moderated by Jim Lehrer this past Friday. The subject matter was supposed to be "foreign policy", presumably John McCains' strongest position. However, from the very first question, it became clear that the economy was going to dominate. When Obama flat-out accused McCain of being wrong on the fundamentals of the economy, moderator Jim Lehrer asked Obama to "say it directly to him," meaning McCain. After Barrack repeated his accusation face to face, McCain gave the funniest statement of the debate. Turning to Lehrer, he bitterly questioned, "You afraid I couldn't hear him?"
Senator McCain then tried desperately to divert attention away from the economy by injecting war stories and dropped the names of every politician and political player he's ever worked with from Henry Kissinger to General Petraus. Obama would have no part of it however, At ever opportunity he steered the conversation back to the economy. The approval monitors CNN had given to the audience told the tale. When the economy was the issue, Barrack's approval soared while McCain's faltered.
From my stand point, the debate went very well for Senator Obama despite some high points for McCain on taxes and "the Surge". If the economy doesn't turn around before election (and it's hard to see how it could), McCain will continue to suffer for it. Just as it's hard for Barrack to separate himself from his past, Senator McCain will have a difficult time separating himself from the deregulation and policies (such as Social Security Privatization) that he once supported. As shady as some people find Obama's past acquaintances, the fact remains that it didn't cost the American public any money, or possibly their financial future. My instinct is that we will see a repeat of 1992 this November and I am boldly predicting that, barring any unforeseen ethical scandal, Senator Barrack Obama will be our first black President. The math is simply against the Republicans this time around. In most people's mind it will spell out like this; Two Bushs, two Wars with questionable motivations, two recessions, two banking scandals and now two bailouts. John McCain will never be able to totally separate himself from the policies and people he once supported. Shades of 1992? Yes, once again, "It's the economy, Stupid." H.C.
4 comments:
I'll buy most of your argument. But the big difference between the campaign of '92 and the campaign of '08 is subtly embedded right in the title of this post. "Shade". As in Obama's shade. As in his color.
You know me. And you know that I'm as slow as Timmy when it comes to pulling the race card, but it has to be factored in when we consider the current state of things. By all purposes, this election should be over by now. For the very reasons you cited in your post (and using 1992 as a model), this should have been a waltz into the White House. But as the reality that a black person may actually win starts to set in, suddenly the inevitability of McCain's defeat is not so inevitable. Of course there are plenty of other factors (namely, the disaffected Hillary supporters and Palin being added to the ticket, to name a few). But I'd be naive to think that the country in general has looked past the way Obama looks; similarly to how I suspect the country would have viewed Slick Willy had he been a brotha.
Hopefully, the only role race will play in the election is in the shape of Obama only winning by four points instead of mimicing Clinton's landslide victory. I can live with those numbers.
Hey Dre,
I understand your concern. But I believe that the increase in young people voting,along with the increase in Democrats participating, added to the vast interest by black people, will more than offset any "Bradley Effect" that Barack may suffer. All things considered, I don't believe there is a real disadvantage for Barack as far as the polling goes. However, I would feel better if Obama had a 5% lead going in just to be sure. My prediction is that he will win by 1 to 2% (despite your race worries, your more optimistic than me on his left-leaning views not dragging him down.) Everyone comes in with pluses and minuses. You have to look at both.
I agree H.C. John McCain's support of the 2 Bush regimes is certainly more of a detriment to McCain than Obama's skin color is to Obama. And unless you only listen to black stand up comics, there really isn't a drawback of being black anymore. Obama might get elected based on affirmitive action alone. I'd rather slit my wrist than vote for either one of these cheese-dicks. But if I was forced to pick, I guess I'd be like the majority of the population...we want to be as far away from George Bush as we can get, so we're voting for Obama. Ron Paul 2012 Bitches!!!
Affirmative Action?!
You are joking, right...?
Post a Comment