Obama’s lead in the national polls has been trumpeted by most in the media as insurmountable. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd has already declared the race over and coronated Barack Obama. Gallup shows Obama leading by a staggering 11 points, while Zogby has the gap at only 2 points (Zogby was the only poll that accurately called the 2004 presidential election, by the way). The RealClearPolitics average (a compilation of all the major national polls) gives Barack Obama a 5 point lead. No matter how you slice it, however, this thing isn’t over until it’s over.

A single question has hung around Obama since the now seemingly pre-historic days of the brutal Democratic primary: why can’t he close the deal? His footrace with Senator Clinton was almost a photo-finish, with Obama unable to deliver a definite coup-de-grace until he was rescued by the super-delegates. And now, in an election season that should overwhelmingly favor the Democrats (the two-term sitting Republican president holds an approval rating right around 26%, just slightly higher than Congress’ 16.5%), Obama is locked in a grapple with McCain a month before Election Day when conventional wisdom tells us that this thing should be a cake-walk. What the hell is going on here?

Simply put, Americans aren’t sure about Barack Obama. Despite the media’s criminal negligence of some very pertinent details in Obama’s political and personal history, they’re not sure if they can trust his campaign claims that he’s a moderate with America’s best interests at heart. The McCain campaign has raised some serious and valid questions about Obama’s Senate record and his associations, and while most Americans will tell pollsters that they want this supposed mudslinging to stop, these doubts will cling to them all the way to the voting booth.

Some of last night’s post-debate analysis has given voice to these concerns and suggested that the Democrats may not be so sure about what November 4th will bring either. What they are sure of, however, is that if Obama can’t win it they’ll need a back-up plan. What they have in mind is commonly referred to as a “scorched earth policy”, and the comments made post-debate by David Gergen and James Carville on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” gave us a glimpse of what guise this policy would take. Simply put, they’ll blame it on all you bigots in Middle America.

When asked whether he thought it was “game over” for McCain by Cooper, Gergen said, “I think it's too early to declare victory Anderson, because Barack Obama is black. And until we play out the issue of race in this country, I don't think we'll know...” Obama is black? That’s crazy. But Gergen continued when pressed on the issue, saying, “Over the years there's a study now that's come out of Stanford University and the Associated Press along with Yahoo, saying that is - that his blackness may cost him as much as six points.” Apart from being pure comedy, this statement is also the groundwork for the Democrats to throw the country into turmoil following a McCain victory. Gergen is saying that the only reason that the election isn’t a done deal is that you racists (you all disgust me) might put McCain in the White House just to keep the black man down. This is the sword with which the Democrats will not only skewer McCain but cut America in two along racial lines. Just as the retreating Russians burned everything they left behind to starve Napoleon’s army, so too will the Democrats leave American race relations in such shambles that the McCain administration will be stuck with the smoldering aftermath of 2008 for years to come.

Not convinced? Look at what the loveable forest troll James Carville had to say on the same program:

“Now let me be clear here, if Obama goes in this race with a 5 point lead and loses this election, the consequences are - bull, man. I mean I don't think that's going to happen, but I think David it's a point to bring up.

“But you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there.”

All I’m saying is, get ready to take the blame if Obama loses the election. It shouldn’t surprise any of us that liberals would rather see this country tear itself apart over an artificial issue than accept the results of a free and fair election. But this of course wouldn’t be the first time. Since the elections of 2000 and 2004, nothing has been sacred. If liberals can’t win an election, they clearly think something is either wrong with the system or wrong with us. They blame their loss on voter fraud or racism, or they try to enact their agenda by fiat through activist judges.

1 comment:

Hariolor said...

In reverse order, or really in random order because reverse isn't the order in which I want to address things:

1) Yes on the activism by fiat, true

2) Not so sure Obama's inability to "finish" is really there or not. I am such a cynic regarding polling data of any kind (being that I myself lie to them at almost any opportunity just to know I poisoned the well a bit), that I think much of it is trumped-up by our drive by media. Don't get me wrong - the Obamessiah had a good run against Hillary because she didn't buy into his preordination back in '04 at the convention. But that was an intraparty issue which, as you rightly point out, was settled by the powers-that-be. This takes me to the national issue.

3) While I had been predicting Obama from the beginning for the Dems, because it was so ordained from the beginning, I was not sure how the race thing would play out. I do want to share a telling anecdote that may give validity to the leftist argument regarding our racism, though is hardly a justification for the damage they will surely cause by inflating it:

At the bank the to-day [I want to start re-hyphenating more words that should be hyphenates] I was chatting with a regular customer who shall remain unidentified. We are on friendly terms and the topic of the debate came up. We bandied about, but both being of similar political ilk, had little to really say, as we are both bored by excessive agreement on any topic. This little gem, however, was offered up.
"You kids might not understand this," the customer said to myself and my co-worker in a lowered voice, "since things have changed since I was young, but there's a lot of people my age who aren't going to vote for a black man, regardless. Just because he's black."

Now, I don't believe that particular customer is a racist at all, but the words rang true. Among the much-hyped baby boom generation, there is still a strong racial undercurrent that is lacking in our younger, clearly more enlightened generation. They grew up when portraying racial stereotypes on television was liberating, not demeaning. This is a pre-Cosby Show crowd we are talking about here, and as much as they might say the right things in the office sensitivity training, race is a factor, no question.

Now, that's not to say that Obama or his allies have any right in claiming it as the reason for their loss, as they will if they lose, nor does it mean everyone who votes against Obama is a racist. However, Obama is acutely aware of the fact that as much as he might appeal on the surface to coal miners and factory workers, the real "lifeblood" of the country (though this fact is debatable in the 21st century) - a lot of them will go home from the polls and wonder if their black friends will be mad when they find out they didn't vote for Obama.