GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Whether John McCain can beat Barack Obama in the fall depends on whether the senator from Arizona is willing to wage the right kind of cultural campaign against the senator from Illinois aimed at Reagan Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
That’s right, you heard me. John McCain should not only not avoid a cultural campaign, he should embrace it and actively seek it out.
Does that mean that McCain should begin touting his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage? Of course not. To do so would be folly. Hillary Democrats aren’t likely to be swayed by conventional conservative arguments on these issues given that they’re first choice for president was a candidate who held left of center positions on these issues. That means that Hillary Democrats either want their president to support, say, abortion rights, or simply don’t care. For John McCain to point out that Barack Obama is pro-choice will likely yield a big, fat, “So what?” from Hillary Democrats.
But that doesn’t mean that there is no cultural issue in the race that McCain can exploit. To the contrary, there is one major cultural issue in a McCain/Obama race that McCain can use to galvanize both Republicans as well as Hillary Democrats. That cultural issue is Barack Obama.
There’s a reason that, despite few overt policy differences, half of Hillary supporters in North Carolina and Indiana refuse to go to the polls for Obama in the fall. The reason is that Hillary Democrats don’t trust Barack Obama to lead this nation because they feel that he doesn’t share their values and their world view.
Again, note that this is not about abortion or gay marriage. Remember, these are Hillary Clinton supporters we’re talking about. The values that Barack Obama doesn’t share with Hillary Democrats, in the view of the latter, are values that are far broader and more encompassing than any single list of social issues. What Hillary Democrats fear about an Obama presidency is that a President Obama wouldn’t govern the country with the same regard for America’s interests and culture as would a President Clinton.
Hillary Democrats know that a President Clinton would fight OPEC in order to lower the price of oil for Americans. That’s because a President Clinton would view her role as president as one that requires her to be a bulldog for the United States of America when dealing with the rest of the world. Hillary Democrats want a president who would be a fierce advocate, not a half-hearted apologist.
Hillary Democrats know that their candidate grew up in middle class Middle America, along with folks who own and fire weapons, who drink beer and shots, and who generally think highly of the American people and American culture. Hillary Democrats don’t want a president who looks down on American culture, who thinks it odd or primitive, or who mocks it when he thinks the cameras are off. That’s because a president who does those things is less likely to act when the culture is being threatened by the sort of creeping sharia that is taking place in certain parts of Europe.
Hillary Democrats don’t trust Barack Obama to be president. And John McCain, a veteran with a fairly normal family life who loves the country that he served, is a candidate who shares their world view. In order to win Hillary voters, McCain must connect with them culturally and emphasize the cultural disconnect between these Democrats and Barack Obama. This cultural campaign will be far different from those waged by President Bush, who utilized his status as an evangelical in order to create a religion-based spectrum during the 2004 election, where one’s vote and one’s church attendance were highly correlated. To the contrary, McCain’s cultural campaign will be one about values other than those based on religion. A McCain/Obama race pits one candidate who looks down on the everyman against another candidate who IS the everyman. John McCain is the guy who went to Vietnam. He’s the guy whose first marriage didn’t work out. He’s the guy who views politics in a centrist, common sense, pragmatic sort of way. He’s the guy who you’ll meet at any and every VFW establishment throughout the country. There’s no question that he’s a guy who thinks like most Americans, who views the world like most Americans, and who will fight for middle class Middle America with every breath that remains.
The question is, will Barack Obama do the same? That’s the question that John McCain needs to have the guts to ask the American people. If he addresses that question to Hillary Democrats, we all might be surprised by their answer.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Barry’s new slogan: Wine and 40 drinkers for Obama.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Maybe its because I am ivy educated and in my 40’s, but I consider Obama to be more my cultural equal than McCain. McCain was born to an heiress during the depression, grew up during segregation, and is comfortable calling Asians “gooks.” I can’t identify with him culturally.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
PabloZed, same here. I’d choose Obama to be my friend, but want him nowhere near the Presidency.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Dave,
There is certainly a strong contrast between the candidates’ narratives. Nice post…
May 9th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
and is comfortable calling Asians “gooks.�
True, but you can’t exactly fault him on that part.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Chickens coming home to roost:
All the various industries that have been unfairly attacked by our wonderful John McCain, and who supported Bush, are not contributing much to McCain, and instead are contributing to his Democratic opponents:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anDWekGuCW8E&refer=worldwide
Serves McCain right. I’ll vote for him, but I told them to stop asking me for any money.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
This whole Reagan Democrats thing is getting old.
Most Reagan Democrats are dead, or have become Republicans by now.
It’s one of the most overused terms this cycle. Obama can’t win Reagan Democrats. Of course not, because they’re dead.
As for your argument, George W Bush won 2 elections, and he certainly isn’t some middle class warrior. So acting like you need some middle class hero to beat Obama doesn’t hold any water.
Hillary is winning most of those white voters for one reason above all else, and we all know it doesn’t have anything to do with her position on OPEC. 99% of those voters probably couldn’t even tell you what OPEC stands for, let alone 3 countries who are memebers.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I agree with jim to the extent that the excessive analysis of Clinton voters is unnecessary. She is a Clinton and a woman, which has to account for 95+% of her voters. The question really isn’t why is she getting these voters but why isn’t she getting more.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Is this pic doctored?
http://www.basehead.org/files/shots/1-mccain_bush_hug.jpg
May 10th, 2008 at 1:31 am
PabloZed, are ivy leaguers unable to google? at any rate that’s a pretty famous photo:
http://www.google.com/search?q=mccain+bush+hug&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
May 10th, 2008 at 1:36 am
PabloZed, you like Novak, eh? What did you think when he cursed out Carvile and stormed off the set on CNN?
May 10th, 2008 at 3:34 am
WOW! Obama never ceases to amaze me!
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/09/obama_adviser_tied_to_hamas_me.html
May 10th, 2008 at 6:33 am
I’ve talked to a few of my friends, who are the future jet-setting Davos men, basically Obama’s base, and they can’t quite understand what I mean when I say Obama isn’t a regular guy. After all, he’s just like them. One of my friends even said, about McCain, “Obama will do better in the general election, when he’s not facing Hillary, because McCain is really awkward around actual voters”. What he meant by “really awkward” of course was that McCain wasn’t silver-tongued, he didn’t speak the language of the jet-setting crowd, and he didn’t drift in and out of different cadences. But, while these are the sort of qualities that appeal to certain types of liberals, and admittedly certain types of conservatives, they aren’t the qualities that appeal to Middle America. That’s why “dumb as a stump”, fumbling, George W. Bush, beat two certified “geniuses” like Gore and Kerry.
It’s why John McCain managed to beat the colossally intelligent Mitt Romney, despite having the worst debate performance in the history of western civilization right before Super Tuesday (this after losing every previous debate). It infuriated me at the time, but I was largely able to understand it. Because while I’ve grown into an intellectual, same as alot of my friends, I also grew up around alot of blue-collar people. My mom never graduated college. Only one of her sister’s, and neither of her parents, went to college. My dad was a first generation college student. My grandma on my dad’s side didn’t even graduate from high school. And I’ve had some really good blue collar friends. I’m somewhat out of place in either world (the intellectual world or middle America), but I understand both. And something I’ve singularly noticed about my intellectual friends, is that the more they’ve interacted with blue collar America, the less likely they are to be impressed by Obama.
One of those friends was very excited about Obama, then watched a debate in January, and really liked what Hillary had to say. He’s a blue-collar, Catholic Democrat; Obama’s achilles heel. I can’t say he’ll vote for John McCain if Obama gets the nomination. He probably won’t, because he’s also young, which almost nullifies the blue collar Catholicness. But, if I told him that John McCain’s likely to connect more with Middle America, he wouldn’t look at me like I was crazy.
And the fact is, the sort of voters that voted for McCain, rather then Romney, on cultural grounds (i.e, just couldn’t connect with Middle America), are more numerous in the Democratic Party in swing states. In the South, the good ole’ boys are Republicans. Everywhere else, they vote Democrat more often then not. If you’re a Democrat, and you don’t send the right cultural cues, not on specific social issues, but on a personal basis, then you can’t to 270 in America, even against a despised candidate like George Bush. And John McCain is no George Bush. And, hard as this is to believe, Barry Obama is no John Kerry or Al Gore. McCain sends off more cultural signals to connect with Democrats of this type then Bush did. Obama sends off less then either Kerry or Gore. Kerry ultimately had Vietnam to humanize the latte liberal personality. Gore was a Southerner, which is normally enough on it’s lonesome to avoid sending these Democrats scurrying. Obama has nothing. His few cues cultural cues to lower income voters, are likely to be cultural cues that appeal to lower income blacks. And he can’t possibly use those, because it’s likely to hurt him more with blue collar whites then even the jet-setting, elitist liberal image he currently has.
May 10th, 2008 at 6:36 am
E Dogg,
I had never seen that version before; the one that is “famous” is McCain hugging Bush not copping a feel.
I am a fan of cursing people out who deserve it.
May 10th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Matthew,
You overlook a couple key differences between Obama and Kerry/Gore. One is authenticity. On personality Bush didn’t beat them because he was a regular guy but because the public was more comfortable that he was projecting a true image. I don’t sense that the public believes McCain is any more authentic than Obama, but rather they know more about McCain. But truth is, Obama was raised by his white grandparents in Kansas and what is striking is that if you look at his grandfather as a young man, Obama is the splitting image. That is partly why the idea that Obama has some connection to “poor blacks” is absolutely laughable. Obama is probably “whiter” culturally than most whites.
There is also the generational aspect and this is important to female voters, especially white females. All females are concerned about their children and what kind of society and world they will inherit. Which candidate projects an image of a future they would want - the biracial, super-intelligent, handsome, charming diplomat or the crusty, crabby, foul-mouthed veteran? Remember also that the mood in the country is for change (which McCain to my amazement has admitted). I don’t think its close.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:24 am
I’m not sure that’s true. Obama is in trouble here. He is running a campaign that supposedly is going to transcend “regular politics”. But he has no ground to stand on when he claims he has the ability to do that. He has no record of accomplishment in bridging partisan gaps - only soaring rhetoric. To whatever extent the Republicans show that Obama’s rhetoric doesn’t match reality - it will undercut Obama’s ability to look authentic. His words will be shown not to match his deeds. Already that seed of doubt has been planted with Wright, BitterCling, and Michelle’s very existence (If I were anywhere near calling the shots in Obama’s campaign I would buy Michelle a ticket to Maui and pay for her to sip mixed drinks and shut up and stay out of the newspapers for the next six months).
Democrats will no doubt try to paint McCain as inauthentic too, but it’s going to be harder to do so when McCain can say “Well look at how I reached out to Democrats - even when it wasn’t in my political interest [immigration, campaign finance, etc.]. What have you done to reach out to the Right, Barack?”
True - but if anything the Wright issues galvanized the blacks. Even though it hurt Obama with the electorate as a whole it helped with the AA crowd. Many felt that Obama was being railroaded because of this issue and they rallied to his defense. Hillary was doing better with blacks pre-Wright.
That’s an unfair characterization. Which candidate projects an image females would want? How about a war hero that risked his life for the youngsters’ future? How about someone that is trying to ‘give people a break’ by easing the gas tax? I sure don’t think that white females white an elitist whiner. Obama is a wuss. And McCain is going to win the white female vote anyway whether he wins or loses the election.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Where has Barack Obama demonstrated that he can “feel your pain” better than McCain? In tough economic times the candidate that can speak to blue-collar whites worried about kitchen table issues better will likely win.
Where has Obama demonstrated even the tiniest ability to connect with the voters that supported Hillary? Matt is right - those blue-collar whites didn’t go to Hillary because she possessed some sort of innate talent to woo them over as if she was one of them. Then flocked to Hillary because Hillary wasn’t Obama. That is a HUGE problem for Obama to overcome. Remember that those are the same type of voters that gave Reagan a landslide victory. When I hear Obama speak, I never get the sense that he connects with his audience on economic issues. Those voters are ripe for the taking by the GOP.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:35 am
And when Obama loses WV by 25 points or more, even though everyone knows Hillary is almost certainly finished, what does that say about his ability to connect with the very same group of people that you are so convinced he will? In a way you “don’t think is close” to what McCain can do?
May 10th, 2008 at 7:37 am
I don’t understand why Matthew keeps bringing up that one debate. The race was already over by then. Anyone watch the Reagan-Mondale debates on youtube? Reagan was terrible.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:56 am
“Where has Barack Obama demonstrated that he can “feel your painâ€? better than McCain?”
The best way to identify with people’s struggles is to have some experience with it. The simple facts are that Obama and his wife grew up in households that sometimes struggle. You say Michelle is a weakness for Obama, but you must not have heard her speak eloquently about her father working everyday although he had MS and her mother who was a stay-at-home mom. They have only recently paid off their college debt and have to small children. Obama can authentically make a connection that the McCains, who have 8 homes, can’t.
“In tough economic times the candidate that can speak to blue-collar whites worried about kitchen table issues better will likely win.”
I agree. Have you heard McCain speak? Fairly or not he struggles. His sentences are often garbled and when he feels pressure he repeats catch-phrases. I agree Obama needs to learn how to speak more emotionally about economic issues. The problem is McCain needs to learn how to speak.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Remember, pablozed, Mr. and Mrs. Barry made 99% of all their money during the Bush administration –not the kind of stuff that connects him to those who feel otherwise. Is BARRY’s family better off than it was 8 years ago is a question I’d love to hear him fumble over.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:29 am
E Dogg,
Actually Obama and Clinton have said the well to do have done fine under Bush so you have your answer. But most of his income came from a book he wrote before Bush was elected. Obama might also point out, however, that his family is paying more for food and fuel like the rest of us. I just got back from the grocery store. I couldn’t buy my favorite box of cereal because its over $4 and whereas I could buy a loaf of store brand bread for $.89 last year, that same loaf is $2.29. Does McCain have to forego his favorite cereal?
May 10th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Pablo,
Sure. So what narrative conveys identifying with hardship better? Going to war for our country and being brutalized physically for his efforts, or going to the ritziest prep school in Hawaii, coming back to the mainland with the image of being of privelege and lacking street cred with urban blacks to such an extent that one needs to team up with a racist hate monger to prove his worth? This can be framed in any number of ways. A candidate’s knowledge of what it’s like to have to muddle through tough times is going to be up to the individual voter, and I’m not convinced that Obama’s story is any more compelling than McCain’s to the blue-collar white conservative Democrats that are up for grabs.
McCain does stumble at times. But then again he’s light years better than Bush and Bush still won despite that. It’s not even close. And Obama doesn’t do well off the cuff. Without a teleprompter he stumbles a lot too. And he is even worse in debates than McCain. To me it comes out as a wash.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Obama is far from drinking watery Hi-C and eating Ramen noodles every day. Michelle just comes across as angry. And it might not be PC to say but an angry black woman isn’t going to resonate with the public at large. She complains about her country, yet she makes $300,000. She was never proud of her country despite doing very well in it until her husband ran for president. She is too outspoken and reminds people of everything Hillary used to be in 1992 - and didn’t like about her. She isn’t what Americans expect in a first lady. She isn’t on the ballot and many folks think she shouldn’t be so visible and outspoken. Teresa Heinz Kerry had the same problem.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am
“McCain does stumble at times. But then again he’s light years better than Bush and Bush still won despite that. It’s not even close. And Obama doesn’t do well off the cuff. Without a teleprompter he stumbles a lot too. And he is even worse in debates than McCain. To me it comes out as a wash.”
McCain’s stumbles are different from Bush’s. Bush just mangles words; McCain mangles thoughts and the difference is every McCain mistake makes one think of his age (although I personally can’t help but think how old he is everytime I see a close-up). Also, as we all know, Obama has not been in public life for 30 years. His growth as a candidate has been remarkable and I suspect he will strengthen as a speaker.
I have not seen any anger in Michelle and as a stickler for grammar I recall Michelle stated that it was the first time she was “really” proud. Adverbs matter. And given Clinton’s performance this year I suspect voters are quite ready for a strong female voice.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Well we’re just going to have to continue to see things differently. Where you see old age, I see experience. And the older folks are the ones that actually make it to the polls. Where you see freshness I see inexperience. And if Obama wants to win, you’re right - he’s going to have to strengthen as a speaker because even though it’s unfair - it’s going to be much harder for an AA to make the sale.
Michelle Obama is not uplifting. She is the opposite of her husband’s “hope”. Hillary Clinton’s performance is different. Hillary Clinton is running for president. Michelle Obama is not. So she ought to be more deferential. She barely let him talk when they were both on the Today Show. Not attractive to the swing voter.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Age and experience do not translate into wisdom and judgment. I personally know a couple old fools. What’s more, our own history informs us that presidents with longer resumes often are the worst while a Lincoln, with a very short resume, is considered one of the best.
I don’t buy at all your emphasis on race and gender. America is in a funk and as Sen. Hagel put it, the electorate has spit out a woman, a person of color, and an aging veteran. Obviously America is ready for something different.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:50 am
But where has Obama shown wisdom or good judgment? When he cozied up to Ayers and Wright to further his career? When he put down the voters he was spending millions to court? When he opposed the war out of necessity to win in a far-left senate district then on his website proclaimed that his position on the war was not all that different from the president’s? It didn’t take courage to oppose the war in a high AA state senate district in Chicago.
I wish there wasn’t such emphasis on race and gender. But recall that Obama was winning among whites before Wright and before BitterCling. So the argument could be made that the focus on race is Obama’s own doing. Why is Obama going to lose WV in a landslide even though just about everyone knows Hillary is going to lose the nomination? Is it because of race? Is it because of not closing the sale with the type of voters he will need in the Fall? One thing is for sure. It’s not just because of Hillary or that the voters prefer Hillary because of Hillary.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:12 am
PabloZed:
Erm, sorry, but I can’t imagine an opportunist like Obama leaping into the flames to rescue his shipmates the way McCain did. But I could imagine Obama delivering a moving, eloquent eulogy for the lives lost…
May 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I don’t like the concept of “having a beer with a candidate”. Or sharing stuggles or situations with a candidate.
I would never vote for my neighbor in a Presidential election - nor would I ever want to live next to John McCain or Mike Huckabee.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:11 am
“the biracial, super-intelligent, handsome, charming diplomat”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The best thing about the Obama candidacy is watching his supporters act like a caricature of the caricature the Left has painted of Bush supporters over the past eight years.
Dear Leader indeed.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I believe Obama’s was supported by four types of voters. (1) Whites who identify with him: the younger, well educated crowd. Such people have a strong disdain for the rough and tumble, corrupt world of politics, and Obama’s appeal for civility reminded them why they disliked Clinton. (2) The strongly “liberal” crowd, many of whom were too cowed to oppose Bush during the drive to war, and want revenge; such people provided huge gobs of money to Howard Dean in 2004 (before he was killed by the media). (3) The young voters who view Obama was a Luke Skywalker. (4) African Americans. It is understandable that the last three classes of voters ignored Obama’s extreme inexperience. Voters in the first category did so because of their identification with Obama, and because of their disdain for politics: if you believe all politicians are shady characters and card sharps, and believe they have no valuable skills, you do not differentiate between their skill levels.
Any voter who does not identify with a politician must be given a reason to elevate the politician over him/her and gratify the politician’s lust for power. The blue collar crowd clearly did not identify with Obama (his speech, cadences, idioms, content and rhetoric would have set him apart). And what did they see? A man who had no meaningful high-level political experience, nor accomplishments, nor record of successful change or major contribution to society; who was also not willing to convey a serious, achievable, political message (higher taxes/lower taxes/policy priorities); who only talked about civility in politics. And yet they saw him lionized by the media, who kept harping on the novelty of a well educated African American candidate. This disconnect between Obama’s real experience and his lionization probably aroused a feeling in many that this was a case of affirmative action, especially in people of Irish, Italian, and Hispanic origin who do not feel guilty for the legacy of racism. Is it a surprise that the Catholics and Asian-Americans have been voting in large numbers against him? The white Catholocs and Asians are most affected by affirmative action, and they probably see Obama as an “affirmative-action” candidate. And even if they did not, they probably would have been turned off by being constantly accused of racism for not voting for Obama (and by his campaign predictably trotting out accusations of racism against his opponents before every major primary where blacks formed a large voting black). And then Obama goes to San Francisco and dismisses them as bigots and losers.
Will many of these voters vote for him in the general election? I dont think they will oppose Obama because of a love for Hillary, but because they truly do not want to be ruled by him. Of course, conservatives feel the same way about McCain. It remains to be seen which effect is stronger.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:21 am
The fact that Obama is the candidate of “chic” up-scale white liberals vs Clinton’s more middle class “blue collar” Dems does present an opportunity for McCain as DaveG is suggesting. The challenge will be how to do that and stay out of trouble. McCain is going to have to get a good share of the more up-scale white suburban vote (especially in the northern suburbs) in addition to the blue collar Dems if he is to win. This contest is going to have more subtle subtexts than any we have seen in a long time and will require some very skilled messaging. Good luck to us.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Sanjeeb,
Your analysis falls flat because Obama’s voters are not ignorant of his record or his years in public office. The dems in Iowa and NH spent millions of dollars and all their time letting everyone know Obama was in the Illinois state senate for 8 years before getting elected to the US Senate. Voters processed that and voted for him. Sure, some voters do want a longer resume, but no one in Washington had a better resume that VP Cheney or Rumsfeld.
I also think your argument regarding affirmative action is not only inane but suggests a self-loathing. Senator Spector and a number of other republicans have spoken admiringly of Obama’s intellect as have his University of Chicago colleagues. Perhaps because I admire and like smart people I have no problem acknowledging that someone possesses an extraordinary intellect, but obviously not everyone is as secure.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
PabloZed,
Obama is culturally white, sure. But, he’s also capable of identifying with blacks. Watch some of his speeches to all or nearly all black crowds. Watch his speech in Maryland two years ago, when he was campaigning to stop Michael Steele. The guy dropped into “black” cadences the way Bill Clinton drops into Bubba mode around blue collar whites.
May 10th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I thought Metro had a good point. He is culturally like Obama.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
PabloZed,
Einstein was probably more intelligent than Barack Obama, at least in processing/analyzing physical phenomena. Yet, I am certain you would not want him to be your president. I do not deny that Barack Obama is intelligent, but voting for a president cannot be reduced to conducting an IQ test.
You missed my point earlier. Any politician who campaigns to be president has an obscene desire for fame, glory and power. Such a person, when elected, will have a discomforting ability to affect our lives. It is imperative that such a person’s hunger for power is mitigated by past service and limited by ideology. Many voters do not detect any mitigating factor in Barack Obama’s case (he masked his ideology at the beginning of the campaign and does not have any contributions remotely commensurate with even his current position as Senator).
May 10th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
‘Einsteing was probably more intelligent than Barack Obama’
LOL, really? I don’t know, it would be really close!! Hmmm, I wonder if Einstein knew we had only 50 states in the USA?
I’m sorry, I haven’t seen a dang thing coming out of his mouth, or anything he has accomplished that causeds be to stand in awe of Obama. Romney could have torn him a new ‘you know what’ in a debate.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
sorry for the lack of editing!! lol
May 10th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
GREAT BLOG DAVE G
May 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
If McCain wants to win, all he has to do is say something complimentary, and true, about Hillary, and her supporters will come to his side faster than you can say “Barack, who?�. Like, “Hillary was a strong candidate who never gave up, even under attacks on her from within her own party. She’s a true fighter who believes in America.� And say it at a few debates.
Bingo - all of her supporters who are now changing to Independent, and Republican, and/or who are considering sitting home or voting for McCain, will do just that sit home or vote for McCain.
These people are in those swing states- I know - I’m in PA.
Leave a Reply
May 12th, 2008 at 1:58 am
I think a point that needs to be refuted is the theory that being in financial hard times does not necessarily equate to cultural connection with blue collar workers.
I keep hearing about how the Obamas just finished paying their student loans. Well duh. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991. She graduated in 1988. 20 years is not an unusual payback term for private student loans, as would be needed for any but the seriously wealthy to attend Harvard Law. So long as their interest rate was lower than the return the could get on the same money from the stock market (very easily so if they refinanced or consolidated at the right time) there would be no essential economic benefit in paying the loans back early. It’s stupid to reference just paying back their loans - they just payed them off because they’re young, not because they were poor.
And having the experience of living off top ramen and water in your college days or shortly thereafter doesn’t cut it either. Again, most other than the seriously wealthy live that way in college. Top ramen does not a blue-collar worker make.
Obama also talks about his mother getting food stamps at some point in her life. I don’t know what point in time that supposedly happened, but the only time he’s lived with his mother in the United States was from birth to his 6th year when his family moved to Indonesia. At age 10 he went to live with his grandmother in Hawaii and since that time attended a private prep school. I’m certain he has no direct memory of living on food stamps himself. Blue collar parents does not a blue-collar self make. Culturally, Obama is Punahou, Columbia, and Harvard, not Kansas, University of Hawaii, or even South Side Chicago.