Thursday, November 07, 2013

Obama's Campaign Perfectly Foreshadowed His Presidency

President Obama burst onto the national political scene with a cliched filled "we are all Americans" speech in 2004. It has been ten years since that speech, and people are still expecting more from him. Talking head Roland Martin expresses a common black desire for Obama to "go gangsta" on people. It's not going to happen. Liberals wonder where the progressive wet dream went. It was a projection. A lot of Americans just wonder when he is going to manage or lead, while some conservatives smugly cross their arms and say, "we told you so". No one should be surprised. In 2008 with nothing on his resume, the left claimed that Obama running such a fantastic campaign was proof he could govern as president (a predictor of his future presidential style) were right for all the wrong reasons and wrong for all of the right reasons.

In a neutral manner, how did his campaign go? What was Obama's presidential campaign like? Underdog versus Hillary, but the best "Anybody but Clinton" option for many Democrat donors. All the moderates bowed out: Bayh, Warner and Vilsack. Obama spoke pure platform issues talk throughout the campaign, and outflanked HRC to the left whenever possible (repeatedly on Iraq). Reviewing the early phase of the 2008 primaries, Obama won caucus states by having a much better ground game than HRC. Reflecting a common theme, Obama's organization with media assistance undermined the Michigan and Florida results that gave HRC early wins in big states. Michigan and Florida dragged their primaries ahead to gain relevance because in 2004, the race was over by the third primary in a truly weird primary season. Any momentum from those semi-contested wins was delegitimized by the media while caucus wins (caucuses are a joke) were proof of Obama's connection with the voters. The calendar sweeping down south where the overrepresentation of black voters in primaries gave Obama wins due to tribal loyalty and royally upset Bill "First Black President" Clinton. These early wins pulled donor money, erasing HRC's early campaign money advantage.

The Jeremiah Wright flap happened, which caused Obama to respond with a speech where he threw his dead grandmother under the bus. The media loved the speech. HRC continued her campaign. The media said she had to win one of Ohio/Texas to stay in. The 3am red phone commercial where HRC called into question Obama's readiness to handle emergencies debuted there. Despite being called yesterday's news, she won both Ohio and Texas, but because the odd way Texas works and the Democrats awarding delegates by proportional allotment, Obama's losses didn't hurt him. The Texas party leaders award delegates separately from primary results, which shifted more delegates Obama's way despite his loss in Texas. The GOP places importance on managing resources in different states and getting the win. The GOP switches to winner take all delegates after the first Super Tuesday, while the Democrats stay in proportional allotment. Obama's early lead and the Michigan/Florida disqualification and later recasting helped him along to frontrunner status despite losing big states that are purple in the general election.

This did not stop the media. Pundits started saying that Clinton should leave as Obama had it wrapped up. The popular vote was in his favor depending on what contested states (MI/FL) you excluded but even then, was purely due to his advantage in Cook County Illinois alone. Others questioned if she was the stronger candidate at this point compared to Obama's dithering, with a few calling for HRC to be the nom and Obama the VP. Obama looked tired, and media pressure was applied to superdelegates to vote as the popular vote was saying, not current momentum. Finally, enough superdelegates aligned with him. He needed them. Obama's delegate total already altered significantly in his favor due to the MI/FL recasting was not going to hit the needed line until the superdelegates broke his way. The elite of the Democrat party selected him, not the Democrat voters. At every point of conflict, the media broke for his favor, not Clinton's.

Once set up against McCain, Obama stumbled a bit. He was not as sharp. Was the campaign taking a toll on him? Was he bored? (sound familiar) From late July to mid-September, McCain and Obama were in a toss up, with McCain leading or tied with Obama in polls through late August and deep into September. Obama took the lead in polls in mid-September. Something else happened in mid-September: Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and the great American Financial Crisis of 2008 began in full force. While McCain was called to DC to deal with the crisis, the Democrat leadership let Obama stay in the field campaigning. Exactly how important to the party mechanics was Obama? He served better as a face out campaigning than in the DC negotiations. Obama won in November going away. Thank you media and Wall Street.

Weak, flailing, aloof, speeches to cover for anything that go nowhere, the media covers for him, vast organization runs around thinking politics and only politics never with any results besides more politics, questions of engagement and boredom, adoring idiots who support blindly, and Wall Street giving a nice assist. His campaign was a preview of his presidency if you look at the 2007-2008 campaign objectively. If you look at the statement the way the left was, they were blindly looking at his wins and using the "He speaks so well" low hurdle when listening to his speeches. His success was a product of third party interference. The real Obama was there. Obama was against Iraq's invasion in one speech yet he wanted to surge in Afghanistan and widen the drone war in the Af-Pak theater (few believed that). Obama was in the pocket of big biz then, just like anyone else.

The winning, amazing campaign won but really had a much bumpier ride than portrayed. It was a perfect preview of a presidency of little achievements but lots of media excuse making and surrogates running the show (David Plouffe/Val Jarrett). The weak guy who always seems to be bored and too bothered to be president of today was there back then, but few paid attention. Obama is the same person and personality from 2008. His words are the same ("1% is bad, banks must pay, war is bad"). His actions are still contradictory to his rhetoric or dithering inaction. He is what he is, and the media, Wall Street and Democrat political elites carefully picked him for 51% of you.


Big Bill said...

I told my wife he was a nice boy at Harvard, but didn't seem to have much going for him except The Speech in 2004. I also told her that Goldman Sachs giving him a million versus a quarter of that to McCain didn't seem promising.

And Wall Street got the candidate. They knew the Left would cover his back and blame everything on the Republicans, and they were right!

Portlander said...

I don't follow mainstream punditry that closely, but among the conservative bloggeratti I think Sailer has had Obama's number better and for longer than anyone.

Son of Brock Landers said...

Agree with both of you. Wall St picked their minority puppet so they could loot more and have a handy 'face' to deflect the underclass' hate and anger. Sailer has had a great read on O. I have another O post coming Monday on a couple of articles that just came out on him.