Stating the Obvious
By NoQuarter on August 7, 2008 at 11:34 AM in Barack Obama, Democratic National Convention, Democratic Nomination, Electability, Hillary Clinton, Messiah
A prominent conservative Republican has stated the obvious:
In a tough year like this, Democrats could probably have defeated Republican John McCain with a flawed, but seasoned candidate like Hillary Clinton. But long-suffering liberals convinced their party to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee — and thereby they probably will get neither.
— The author, Victor Davis Hanson, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal and the 2008 Bradley Prize.
You can’t say that we didn’t ceaselessly WARN the party that this would happen. You, me, Larry Johnson, and many other brave bloggers. Why the party allowed the hard left — the “authoritarian leftists” — to have its way is beyond me. Most of them are very unreliable Democrats anyway. If their preferred candidate, for ANY position, isn’t nominated, they stew and grouse, preferring to stay in a snit and allow the Republican opponent to win. In 2004, I personally watched as the hard left’s preferred candidate lost the Washington state gubernatorial Democratic primary to Chris Gregoire. (He WAS a fine candidate, but he lost. That’s life.) The hard left did NOTHING to aid her general election campaign. What happened as a result? She won, by just over 100 votes and only following weeks and weeks of recounts. For the hard left, it’s “my way or the highway.” Now she’s in a tough reelection bid against the same Republican who is backed by a huge number of highly motivated Republicans still fueled by bitterness over the outcome they are certain was illegally won. Do you think the left will come to her aid this year? I seriously doubt it, even though she has pandered to them by endorsing Obama (a huge mistake she will rue when the GOP runs ad after ad showing her on stage with Obama).
SUPERDELEGATES: It is not too late to change course!
Read all of Hanson’s article: “Hillary’s Growing Shadow.”
The subtitle?
The Left convinced Democrats to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee — and now they have neither
It’s getting pretty bad when fools of the far right can point out the obvious.
VDH is a trust fund baby, deplorable.
The DNC is surrendering high ground to people like him?
Well, someone has to state the obvious because all of the ‘dependable’ MSM supporters of old have left the Clintons and moved on to Barack the Bubblehead.
Be grateful at least one side isn’t enamored with his “royal” highness.
And the dependable MSM supporters/enablers are still urging Hillary to just
go away
what if it’s the other way around? what if you’re so blinded by anger that you’re starting to find yourself in agreement with media outlets that you would have previously dismissed as nutty? what if the media didn’t change, but you did? most importantly, how would you know?
We will know for sure in November.
ritamary,
Do you think you’re “blinded by anger” or just seeing things through the clear lens of truth?
Most folks I see here may be pissed but they are sure as hell seeing things plenty clearly!
I actually thought Obama was an attractive candidate in the beginning, though I never intended to vote for him. But scratch the surface and what once seemed attractive is now, well - you fill in the pejorative blanks.
(FKA Rev. Wright, can you fix my garlicnose?)
I have to agree with your analysis, only initially, he was on my short list and I found him equally agreeable as a candidate to two or three others at the outset.
Of course, that’s when I didn’t know a thing about him, and I (admittedly) was projecting my own beliefs upon his blank slate.
Where he started to go wobbly with me was when his associations with Rezko were widely disseminated, and by the time he was parading about with Donnie McClurkin and Kirbyjon Caldwell, Bush’s minister, I was completely disgusted.
From there, it’s only gotten worse. He can’t help acting like a total phony.
There’s just no way he can recover. He’s irrevocably damaged goods, IMO.
I, for one, am not blinded by anger. I never liked Obama from the beginning. The first speech I heard him give was in S.C., and my first impression was that he sounded like one of those T.V. preachers who fleece old people out of their money. Funny. Now, we know who he learned that from.
I’m a middle-of-the-road Indy voter. On some issues I lean to the liberal. On others, to the conservative. This might be too much for single-minded people, like the typical Obama supporter, to grasp, but I’m representative a huge chunk of the voting public and the reason why Obama should be worried.
I supported Hillary Clinton, because I felt that she would be the best candidate to work both sides of the aisle and actually get something accomplished in Washington. McCain was always my second choice behind Hillary, so my support of him is in no way a spite vote.
The far right is simply “clarifying” a view of the democratic situation that serves their own interests. Whether this is actually what happened or not is totally immaterial to them. What serves their end is that people see things that way. Their explanation is part of the manipulation itself. It’s all about getting the democratic party to self-destruct.
The machiavellian mechanations of Karl Rove are behind the systematic promotion of ideas like this. Karl has us all figured out. He identified the fault line, and worked out how to attack it. You can bet money on it.
Yep, and that fault line started at the feet of Donna Brazile.
I remembering remarking to a friend of mine who is fully steeped in the Obama Kool-Aid that, when he got the nomination, John McCain became president.
He was fully oblivious to the fact that Hilliary enters the race as a clear favorite based on current public distrust of my party (for good reason I might add), even though McCain was the nightmare candidate for any Democrat.
Once Obama won the primary, it was over, he is now beginning to see the writing on the wall but still supports his choice (out of embarrassment more than anything!).
Take care,
Patrick
stole the primary. Never forget. Stole.
indeed! mea culpa!!!
Patrick
LOL Patrick!
I think the only reason many elites still support Obama is out of respect for Howard Dean
You have to be pretty sick to respect Howard Dean.
I’m insulted by that article. I still consider myself liberal, but do not associate with the radical left.
I want that term back, along with my party.
Yes indeed.
The “radical left” is not tolerant at all, they’re lockstep partisans. They’re every bit as obnoxious as the radical right, with their “musts” and absolutes.
It’s all bullshit on the fringes. It’s also a helluva lotta heat, and damned little light. The real liberals are the everyday, ordinary, hardworking bastards in the MIDDLE, the ones who give both sides a fair hearing before they make up their minds.
I like those people in the middle, those “genuine liberals” who are open to ideas from all sides. The only thing “moderate” about them is that they aren’t easily bullshitted, and they don’t buy a pig in a poke. They question, they THINK. They’re REAL. And they aren’t so dug in that they can’t change with changing realities.
It’s what happens when one uses one’s brain regularly. I wish more of these assholes would try that sometime.
We can still demand that we get to vote for Senator Clinton at the convention.
Very well put.
Excellent Susan…as usual.
That post about the Townhall in Ohio is one example of how things are lookin with regard to FASCIST reactions….The Party has been overun and HIJACKED by Extremists and it will take a while for it to recover…imho. It’s a republican oir should I say Rovian wetdream….sheesh!
**** KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK….NQ ROCKS FOR AMERICA ***
NObama ‘08. NObama, EVER!
The bully tactics work on weak people. I won’t support anyone- friend, family or candidate if they act like a bully. Or if they lie.
McCain’s ad: Democrats praising Mccain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpcxkKlEFA
McCain’s ads just keep getting better and better. I hope this is playing in Ma. Kerry is probably livid. Sen Kerry, I hope you are going down. Too bad Pelosi never said anything good about Mac, I hope someone brings her down, too.
By the way, when are the MA and CA primaries?
I think CA already had their primary - in June.
Good find, Susan.
Hansen hit the nail squarely on the head and drove her
home.
PUMA!
No Quarter Roxx!
The neoconservative VDH boosted for the Iraq invasion, boosts for attacking Iran, wrote an essay praising the movie 300 as a homage to conservative values, was against the N. Korea deal and backs Musharraf. That’s a pretty poor track record to go citing for a supposedly liberal blog.
But then again, Larry has never been a liberal, has he? He was registered Republican up until 2005 and voted for Bush the first time. Then he became a registered independent and now he’s supporting the closed-border-conservative in libertarian motley Bob Barr.
*Snore*
Ooooh….Pleeeezzzz….2000 was a HIJACK. Anyone who doesn’t think that the GOP has a centrist faction is a Doofus. Both parties have been taken over by Extremists…..SHEEEESH!
If a man is right, what do I care what the source is? I am open-minded and can think for myself.
And at least one of the most prominent of Barry’s boosters, Ariana Huffington*, was very pro-Republican until some time in Dubya’s first term.
So, your point would be, what exactly?
*It’s worth noting too that Huffington was one of the staunchest opponents of Bill Clinton, even urging Clinton to resign. Funny how Arianna was not only one of BarryO’s earliest boosters, but she was also one of the loudest of the anti-Hillary brigades.
Obama faked 2002 Anti-War Speech for Ad: New book
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/obama_faked_2002_antiwar_speec.html
I think he faked it, too.
I live in WA state and saw first hand what the Obamamaniacs are like in action at both the precinct and legislative district caucuses. I have not forgiven Gov. Gregoire for her endorsement of Obama after Sen. Clinton had been out here in our state campaigning and raising money for Gregoire’s gubernatorial campaign. My friend says she is going to write in her dog’s name in that race because at least her dog is more loyal than Christine Gregoire.
I am actually casting a vote for her Republican opponent because I believe a message has to be sent to the Democratic Party and turncoats like Gregoire.
Katherine, I live in Seattle. I saw Gregoire at the state convention and was disgusted when she used her visit with the Dalai Lama as a segue into her gushing school-girl speech about obamessiah. It was repugnant. I, too, am voting for Rossi. I don’t agree with some important stands on issues like healthcare, but Gregoire has spent us back to the late ’80s and there’s no end in sight.
And I agree with your take on the caucuses — they were rigged from the beginning.
My husband got caught in the floods at Chehalis, they were rescued, the boat dumped, and then rescued again with a bigger boat.
Anyway, the next day at the evacuation center which was a high school they sent away press who was trying to interview people there. Stating privacy reasons and even claiming some might be embarrassed for having to stay there rather than the ability to save themselves. Which is odd, as you know people were rescued off of roofs, etc. What is embarrassing about that?
Shortly, Gregoire’s Chinook landed on the football field and all those privacy and embarrassment reasons went out the door for the Gov’s photo op.
Hubby said she is very small with a huge bodyguard.
Now the obvious point. Who needs to bring a bodyguard in order to deal with evacuated and rescued flood victims?
Years ago when Gregoire worked in the Attorney Generals office she personally argued against equal pay for equal work — typically at the time male workers were paid much more then female workers for the same or equivalent jobs.
4 years ago I held my nose and voted for her — knowing that she is one of women’s worst enemy.
This year she endorsed Obama very early — and so fine I will NOT vote for her EVER again. She is a small woman in all ways.
AND she is responsible in part for the Obamacrat party in WA. The democrat party is dead in WA.
I’ll vote for one of the alternative candidates — Rossi is still disgusting to me.
There is no longer a “rule” that I must vote straight party line — I’ve returned to Independent.
PUMA
“The Left convinced Democrats to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee — and now they have neither”
But how did they do that? How did the Left convince all these seasoned politicians and political observers to take leave of their senses?
That is the story I am waiting to read.
I think it’s the Money. George Soros is the Democratic money machine, he funds MoveOn and I’m sure many other sites and groups of that type, he has Billions, he can afford it. Many Supers got money from Obama, he bought their loyalty.
EXACTLY
His money won’t help if they lose their seats. They had better do some serious thinking.
Doesn’t Soros have Dual citizenship? And, if so, what does that say about campaign finance and the Logan Act?
Is Soros running for President or other political office?
The hard core left is the same group of whiners who went for Nader in 2000, claiming there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Then Gore became the Eco-King of all things Green and has won back the Lefts’ volatile little hearts. Now they want Obama and the DNC has complied in order to placate their puritanical whinery.
He is right tanking again, but Dems deserve it, you must break yourselves away from Teddy Kennedy control and quest to return to Camelot again it’s not relevant anymore and hasn’t been since the 60’s Bill Clinton new that and didn’t run on it sneaking in below Kennedy’s radar……
Susan,
You know I love ya, but I must ask:
If the ‘Hard Left’ stayed out of helping Chris G. to win, who exactly went and resuscitated those 800 dead Dem’s in Seattle who actually elected her?
See, Susan, I get pissed whenever Anybody screws around with the process. Rep, Dem, Indy, Marxist, Anarchist, Vegan …
I don’t care. If someone screws with the process, I will be against and after the culprits. I think its an idea we all need to cultivate.
We are currently living through the consequences of failing to do so.
Regards
Obama Nation by Corsi contained nothing new for me….but I think for people who do not follow this stuff day and night, there will be a lot new. I suggest you offer it as a good read to independents, friends who are leaning toward Mc, but not sure. It is well sourced, and is a compendium of all the things we read on a daily basis. For the Obama lover, it won’t change their mind. But for the neutral, or those who lack the data all of us have internalized, it may be a revelation.
I was impressed with Corsi’s interviews, as well. He never loses his composure and is happy to go back and forth and explain himself… quite eloquently.
I think the book, should be in every High school,across the USA…Teachers need to teach,there students,about Honesty and dishonesty in politics..
Clinton for Potus
Well , love Hillary and she was the best candidate , and with the DNC treating the Clintons has if they and their work were nothing, serves them right to tank with the Messiah: and with Obama and the bloggers raciest comments about Hillary supporters, has fueled the McCain side, have you looked at any of the comments that supporters of Obama have been posting, on some of the videos, especially the newer ones, now the Republican party is receiving the same respect as we received from the low lifes of the Obama campaign, his campaign as we know has always fueled race, in the issues and the news did very little to focus in on what was occuring to Hillary and her supporters. NOBama , I need more than lovely speeches , I need a better voting record and a sight of conviction to something he stands for, He is a panderer at its best..a saavy salesman, who is now being labeled as untrustworthy.
Great article by Victor Davis Hanson.
Hillary Clinton should consider running as an Independent centrist. She won running as a Centrist anyway. I hate it when we are forced to choose between a Bush clone (McCain) and Bush III (Obama).
Please Sen Clinton, reconsider.
With a couple of notable exceptions, Barack Obama’s voting record in the U.S. Senate has been identical to that of Hillary Clinton. Their platforms have also been very nearly identical, differing only in the details.
It’s pretty obvious McCain would be a continuation of Bush policy. But in what sense exactly would Obama be Bush III?
People keep saying that. They might as well be saying the grass is blue and the sky is green. When I look at policies, votes, and political philosophies, the statement just doesn’t make sense.
Well, let’s look at McCain. He had done more to piss off the fringe right of this country then just about any other republican. The result of this is that the fringe right doesn’t trust him. He’s not their guy. Their support for him is very soft. That alone means he can’t be a continuation of Bush. The fringe right still shows the same zeal for Bush as the fringe left shows for BOBO.
Clinton is just ten thousand times brighter.
She didn’t run the kind of smear campaign this buy ran.
Their platforms have also been very nearly identical, differing only in the details.
The devil is in the details, Ziggy.
That might be to much work for old Ziggy to do. I’m sure he’d need the Cliff Notes.
Stop the hate!
Ziggy, you say “a couple of notable exceptions”. There’s a reason those are “notable exceptions”. If Hillary can vote AGAINST the FISA compromise, but Barry can vote FOR it (then attempt to soothe his supporters’ fear by saying when he’s President he’ll work to overturn it), shouldn’t that be sufficient to know the real DEPTH of feelings behind the differences?
Or, how about the fact that Hillary backed MoveOn.org’s right to take out the “Betray-us” ad while Barry sat that one out (he did vote with Clinton on the much less troublesome “respect for the military” vote) only to become the recipient of MoveOn.org’s endorsement? (I still say that was meaningless at its heart. MoveOn.org is happy to point out its “3.2 million members” in e-mail solicits, yet not even 1/10th of that number bothered to vote to endorse either Obama or Clinton–the actual total vote for the two candidates was just 280,528. In fact, there was no formal vote whether the group should endorse or not, merely a survey of “over 200,000 members”–I certainly didn’t get asked to participate in the survey.)
I also don’t recall anyone having to push Hillary into voting against John Roberts’ confirmation, yet several prominent Senators (who would later eagerly lend their names to the Obamatrain) had to push Barry into voting against Roberts. In his formal statement following the vote, Obama admits that he didn’t have any genuine problem with Roberts’ nomination (only that there were some very vague concerns). Obama also voted to confirm Thomas Griffith to the DC Court of Appeals despite Griffith’s views against Title IX programs (Hillary voted AGAINST the sexist). (One of their similar votes against Janice Rogers Brown showed that Barry was just as racist as Hillary, since Barry voted against the “sister”–or that could have just been extra proof that Barry’s a sexist pig.)
Victor Davis Hanson -
wise comment sadly
As far as Obama being Bush 3:
Don’t forget that Hillary voted AGAINST the Cheney energy bill and Obama FOR it. A lot of it, too, is the arrogance and the secrecy and the “we have all the answers, we don’t need anyone else’s opinion” that Obama and his wonderful followers exude. He’s like Bush in many scary ways.
Here’s my worst case scenario:
Clinton supporters push her back into the race.
There’s disaster at the convention. Obama ultimately wins the nomination, but not without another battle that further widens the divide. (Or, if you prefer, Clinton ultimately wins the nomination, but not without another battle that further widens the divide.)
With the democratic party fractured and unreconciled, McCain wins handily in November.
2012 rolls around. Clinton is no longer a viable candidate, since the Clintons are widely blamed–fairly or not–for the democratic loss in 2008. No other democratic candidate appears that can heal the division and pull the party back together. The republicans also take the election in 2012.
Somewhere in there, Karl Rove gets a 10 million dollar advance for his book explaining how this was all accomplished. (Of course, by then 10 million dollars won’t be what it used to be.)
ziggy,
Obama/Brasile/Dean/Pelosi/Reid created this disaster. Obama race baited. Many of his supporters did nothing but post and scream sexist and misogynist comments about Hillary supporters. They are still attacking Hillary and her supporters.
Obama did nothing-NOTHING- to de-escalate the situation. For example, he did not denounce Jackson, Jr’s sexist comment last January and Obama continues the hatred. This set the tone for his supporters.
After abusing Hillary and her supporters, the “new” Democratic Party wants everything to be okay. It’s like an abusive marriage. You don’t allow the abuse to continue AND you do not allow the abuser to get away with the abuse.
No political party or candidate, especially someone as unqualified as, and with the background of Obama, is worth being abused.
Thank God we have other options in the U.S. And, keeping Obama out of office will allow us to keep having options.
Country before political parties!
I’m afaid I become suspicious when that message translates into “Vote republican”.
The voters didn’t create this situation…the DNC and the LEADERS? of the party did!
There is wide-spread opinion, across the spectrum, that the SDs pushed the wrong candidate!
Can it be rectified?
I can’t see how…two factions with no middle ground!
One loser, one winner…but it should have been legitimate!!!!
There’s only one way that I can see, and some people are going to hate it: A Clinton/Obama ticket, or an Obama/Clinton ticket.
It forces the issue. You maximize democratic support from both camps. Those in either camp that won’t go along are basically a lost cause anyway, because they won’t settle for any scenario that would allow the democrats to win in 2008, or allow Clinton to be a viable candidate in 2012.
To me, that is stating the obvious.
As long as Clinton on the top of the ticket, I have no problem.
I have a problem with voting for a race baiting Dem for president this year. That should never be rewarded. If he learn and come back in 8 years, then I would really consider him.
I support Clinton from the start, but would’ve vote for him if he win the thing fair and square. But painting Bill a racist ain’t it. I though he was very smart and lack experience at the beginning, but stealing four lousy delegate change my view. A complete flip on many major issue in two short months is not the smartest thing. But if he’s smart enough to wait to gain more experience as he said in 2006, then there is hope for him.
I am independent who have never voted for a Republican. The worst I did against a Dem was not voting. But I am going to vote for Mccain if he’s the top ticket. I am kind of happy that Rep elected one of two people I can vote for(Powell being the other).
But if this country is foolish enough to bush for Obama this year, then at least I won’t be part of it. Just as I voted against Bush twice. My conscience will be clear.
Hanson’s article was in our local newspaper today and I thought it was spot on. I always skipped his articles in the past, but am unexpectedly finding that I agree with many conservative columnists in their assessment of BO. I guess the lesson is to find truth wherever it appears.