Contact
Subscribe


Buyer's Remorse

Mar 5, 2008
By .
Politics & Current Events, WTF?

We've all heard the phrase recently in relation to the Obama campaign. We've all probably seen the articles that describe Obama Comedown Syndrome. Well, I find myself waking up on March 5, 2008 and I'll be honest. I'm damn well feeling some buyer's remorse. Read on.

Oh – just to clarify up front, my buyer's remorse is not regret over supporting Sen. Barack Obama. The past four days have validated virtually every negative thought I've ever had about the Democratic Party. I don't know whether it was the Hillary camp trying as hard as they can to foster the "But he's a Negro!!" backlash with the way they doctored the debate video, the shameless lying both in campaign ads and in personal appearances (Congresswoman Tubbs Jones D-OH on TV saying that she thinks that Barack should be proud to wear the clothing of his homeland), the way the Obama campaign bungled CanadaNAFTAGate, the "Vote for me or your babies will die!!!" ad or the "No, vote for ME or your babies will die, because she is already helping your babies die!!" counter ad, or the legions of the soon-to-be dead that are keeping the Empress's hopes alive and ensuring that the Party will destroy their chances of winning in November.

I can't pick just one. But role them all up and I have to be honest. I cannot believe what a bunch of losers this party is made up of. Are they afraid to win? Why do they try so hard to lose? Hillary runs around claiming that the real Democrats are voting for her. That's all well and good. Haven't we already proven time and again that there aren't enough real Democrats to get anyone elected?

To get elected President you need three things: 1) most of your party faithful; 2) a plurality of independents; and 3) as many of your opponent's party faithful as you can poach. Or you need your opponent to get completely screwed over by a spoiler like Perot 92 or Nader 00.

Forget delegate counts. Forget superdelegate counts. Hillary Clinton is not going to get those Independents in an election against John McCain. Hillary Clinton is not going to get Republicans in an election against John McCain. Hillary Clinton isn't going to get the legion of votes that Obama has been getting from the youth movement that he's started (although it's doubtful that McCain would pick those up). Every day that goes by, every negative attack ad she runs, and every lie she tells – she will lose votes from the party faithful that were in the Obama camp.

This primary cycle has reminded me of something, and taught me something new. It's reminded me why I loathe the Democratic Party. It's also taught me something new. I realize now that I hate old people. To quote the great Smoove_B, a kindler and gentler human being than I: "There was a picture I saw last night that was all silver-haried boomers standing around waving hillary signs. If the silver-tsunami boomers put her into office I can only sleep well at night knowing they'll all be dead soon. And I'll vote against generous health care for them to make it happen sooner."

I hold no particular grudge against Obama, and I still like him as a candidate and as a human being (from what I can tell). I don't know that I can vote for his party, even if he is the nominee. They are a band of losers, committed to finding new ways to squander the opportunities in front of them. For what? Some undeserving shrew that has hood-winked people into thinking that it's her turn? How did it get to be the turn of a one-term junior Senator from NY? Isn't that kind of language reserved for dinosaurs like Bob Dole that have been serving since the Madison Administration?

I would like to stress that as far as I know, it is not the collective position of Popehat to hope that all old people die already and stop meddling with our future. But at least Smoove is with me.

Last 5 posts by Brian

18 Comments
Tags , , ,

18 Comments

  1. Patrick  •  Mar 5, 2008 @12:06 pm

    So now the Democrats aren't worthy of Obama just because he lost a couple of primaries? I've got news for you. McCain will be far harder on Obama than Hillary is, not by inclination but because McCain will have the entire Republican apparatus, including many who've studied or worked for Karl Rove, behind him.

    If Obama can't beat Hillary, who has proven herself during this campaign to be a rather awful campaigner, he doesn't deserve to be elected dogcatcher and he's just a more handsome Howard Dean. But I believe he will beat her despite the tough times of last night.

    As to whether he'll beat McCain, gosh, personal feelings come into play so I can't be objective. I'd be inclined to vote for McCain if not for the bill he attached to his name with Russ Feingold, a bill that arouses hate on the level of AM in I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream.

    HATE.

    That said, politics is the ocean and the great men of the Democratic Party (Jefferson, Jackson, FDR, and yes Truman) proved themselves despite appalling character traits to be greater men than Obama has proven himself to be so far. It will take a great man to be the first black President, and even in mediocre or bad elections (Bush over Kerry) it's sink or swim baby. If Obama can't cut it, he deserves the jokes that won't be made about him by anyone except Chris Rock.

    To put it into Geek terms, there's a great bit in the first Lord of the Rings movie that isn't in the books, in which Galadriel tells Aragorn that he has the chance to be the greatest man (think black man, this is a Tolkien elf) since Elendil, or even greater, but that if he fucks it up he's nobody and everyone dies.

    It's time to stop bitching and lying about Canadians and the guy who renamed his Papa John's franchises Papa Tony's. Or else he's nobody. It's not as though he's had a hard time in the election so far. As much as I can't stand Carmen Pacheco, she's right that the media have given Obama an exceptionally easy ride to this point.

    It's time for Obama to step up to the plate.

  2. Brian  •  Mar 5, 2008 @12:21 pm

    I'm not at all implying that the Democratic Party isn't worthy of St. Obama. I'm explicitly saying that the Democratic Party isn't worthy of ME. ;)

    And I agree that if he can't beat Hillary – how can he expect to beat McCain? But I think that if the roles were reversed – it never would have gotten to last night. The party elders would have put a stop to Obama after he had landslide losses in 11 straight contests. He has beaten Hillary. She cannot get the nomination without shenanigans. And so shenanigans it is.

    I mostly just want to lash out at old people and the Democrats that actually want this to drag out until the convention. They are going to get what they deserve. John McCain.

  3. Patrick  •  Mar 5, 2008 @12:23 pm

    Oh, well the Republicans aren't worthy of you either.

    I'd vote for you over any of these characters, but I'm not sure you're over 35. Most likely I'll end up voting for Ron Paul (again).

  4. Brian  •  Mar 5, 2008 @12:28 pm

    The Republicans will become worthy of me if Hillary figures out a way to game the nomination. :)

    You can vote for me in the next election cycle. Just don't tell anyone that I hate old people. Voters tend to frown on that.

  5. Grandy  •  Mar 5, 2008 @12:49 pm

    Obama hasn't given the media all that much reason to give him a bumpier ride, IMO. I mean, you could certainly ask questions now like "why can't he FINISH HER", but you couldn't ask that several weeks ago. Hillary has given the media far more to talk about with her loathsome tactics. That's not to say that the Media shouldn't stay vigilant and ask whatever questions need to be asked of Obama. This is how much Hillary sucks – she's cheapened even the chance to have that the media ask more/better questions about Obama. I agree with Brian with his general sentiments – the democratic party's efforts thus far appear mystifying to me.

    I like McCain, but I'm just not sure I'd vote for him. The republicans deserve a good flogging, but that's not why precisely. I could see myself not voting for him even if Hillary wins the nom; "long shot" though that may be.

  6. Jesse  •  Mar 5, 2008 @1:03 pm

    I think this screed is really more about American politics than about the Democratic party. I mean, Huckabee kept up the fight far longer than he should have, but he was more of a sideshow because of the lack of true interest in his campaign. I don't think the Republicans can actually demonstrate that they are inherrently smarter or less sleazy. They just didn't have as competative a field this time around.

    The Clinton machine knows an awful lot of people in this country and it takes time to overcome those relationships in a general election. Also, Obama has been a little too above it all in the last couple of weeks. While I like that about him in general, he's going to need to show a little more grit to get to the White House. I think he has that in him and he will fine tune his campaign in the weeks ahead (e.g., the word is finally coming out from his camp that Hillary is no longer going to get a free ride on her National Security credentials).

    I certainly wish Hillary would see the writing on the wall (does she really think the Super Delegates can hand her the nomination at this point? or is this more about strengthening her hand to demand the VP slot on the ticket?), but I don't think the length of the primary cycle is all that big a deal, so long as the party elite keep her from going too negative (some vetting is probably good for Obama, but full-on attack mode would be bad for the party … right now Hillary has drafted too far into the latter and needs to pull back). I don't think Hillary has damaged the democrats in any way that John McCain wouldn't have immediately jumped on. To be honest, SNL has probably done more damage to Obama than anyone else, since the media is now falling all over itself to prove that they aren't giving the guy a free ride.

  7. Chris  •  Mar 5, 2008 @1:06 pm

    You may be surprised, but I agree with you. Every time I go to a democratic party event I understand fascism a little better. It's getting better (marginally), it beats the alternative by rather a lot (for me), and I find not doing anything unacceptable. So I do stuff in the democratic party. I'd love it if the Republicans stopped being run by people I can't stand so I could just change my email address, stop going to meetings, and never talk to old hippies ever again.

  8. Brian  •  Mar 5, 2008 @1:10 pm

    Jesse – this screed is entirely about the Democratic Party. I have other screeds for American politics in general. :)

    You have to remember that we started in different spots. I have no affiliation with the Democratic Party, and no motivation to view them through a favorable lens.

  9. Jesse  •  Mar 5, 2008 @2:06 pm

    I have no particular motivation, either. I hate the political machine of both parties. I'm just not certain why you have concluded that what your witnessing right now is behavior one would only find in the Donkey party.

  10. Brian  •  Mar 5, 2008 @2:16 pm

    Jesse – I think that you're right and wrong. In the general side, I find the electoral behavior of both parties and their legions of sheep to be deplorable. But, at the same time – what I am witnessing right now – what is pissing me off right now – is Democratic Party stupidity. Not general politics stupidity. I'm sure that will come later.

    Patrick – I think that Obama is caught in a pickle here and he need's to be careful. Like you say – he has to step up. He cannot be making flat denials for things he knows happened. He cannot sit around and let this harpy yammer on about her massive foreign policy experience when she has very little. But he has to step up in a way that combats this crap without sullying his overall message about a new politics. At this point, he has to live or die on the strength of that conviction.

  11. Ken  •  Mar 5, 2008 @3:51 pm

    Obama just emailed me. Ever since I sent him some cash we're tight. He says Hillary probably only picked up a net of 4 delegates last night.

  12. Derrick  •  Mar 5, 2008 @6:29 pm

    Brian, you need to remember that the voting public still consists of the Democratic idiots that saw John Kerry and said, "yeah, he's the REAL DEAL."

    We haven't culled those people out just yet.

  13. Ezra  •  Mar 6, 2008 @10:11 am

    I haven't jumped on the Obamawagon yet, and I still have concerns about him (especially his fairly glaring lack of substance, and his alarming propensity to vote present) but I agree with a lot of what Brian said above. Now, I think his myopic focus makes it seem like he is blind to the fact that the other side is just as bad (and worse in so many ways..) and the fact that the Republicans have a long history of rallying around whichever old white guy is anointed while the Democrats fracture like some sort of Heisenberg experiment doesn't help much.

    Here is a thought on the current race (and a very calculating reason Hillary might get the nod): Has Obama won a single big state? I believe every big battleground state has gone to Hillary, and those sorts of things aren't lost on the party machinery. Ohio, Texas, California, Pennsylvania (where Hillary holds a big lead..) all carried (or heavily leaning towards) Hillary. Those numbers might make the smoke filled rooms stand up and take notice.

    Rove had an interesting take on the whole Dem primary. He argued that it was helping the Dems a ton, because McCain was being pushed off the front page in favor of Hillary & Obama. And, the most current numbers show both Hillary and Obama beating McCain in a general election (Hillary by 6pts and Obama by 12.) It's going to be an interesting convention!

  14. Brian  •  Mar 6, 2008 @10:33 am

    Ezra – you can say what you will about the Republican Party and the dirty shit they engage in – and I will certainly agree with you on that. But it most definitely isn't a party of losers committed to finding the worst possible candidate available, to virtually guarantee that they lose despite getting every reasonable opportunity to sweep into the White House.

    They seem to make the same mistake every time. There aren't enough Democrats to elect a President just by getting the Democrats to vote for you. There aren't enough electoral votes in the big Dem states to get you elected President. The only way for a Democrat to get elected President is to flip Red States. Hillary Clinton isn't going to flip Red States. I'm not even sure she'll hold all of the Blue States.

    I think that the best case for Hillary is to duplicate Kerry's electoral map. Did he win?

  15. Ezra  •  Mar 6, 2008 @12:14 pm

    Well, the past two presidential elections have hinged on one state. Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Hillary won (although narrowly) in Ohio, and Florida you can't really count yet. Still, I think the numbers are interesting regarding the states that each candidate has won.

    Oh, and do you really think either Bush or Bob Dole were the best candidates the party could have put forward? I don't. In fact, I would argue that Dole was just that – the worst possible candidate. I would also argue that Bush I was a pretty bad candidate all things told (just not quite as bad as Dukakis…) The Republicans lock on the Presidency since the 80s (ignoring 8 pretty good years in the 90s) is more to do with the ruthless efficiency of their machine (even pre-Rove) and the strength of the religious conservatives. Democrats don't have a powerful unifying base like that.

  16. Brian  •  Mar 6, 2008 @12:25 pm

    Bob Dole was a sacrificial lamb. There was no opportunity to unseat Clinton in 1996. Certainly nothing on the level of the opportunity to kick GWB to the curb in 2004. Bush I was the sitting VP of a popular President. And while the Dems had an opportunity there, they squandered it by putting Dukakis up in the general. It's a wonder to me that Bill Clinton ever made it through, although I'm not sure that he would have even won if Perot didn't cock block GHWB.

    The same could be said for Gore – but coming off of the Clinton years, Gore should have walked away from that election. Can't fault the Dems for that though, it wasn't reasonable for the to put up any other candidate.

    I think that there are demos where Obama will have trouble in a general election (friggin' old people). But I don't think McCain can beat him. And I think the Republicans already know that.

  17. Ezra  •  Mar 6, 2008 @2:26 pm

    I personally don't believe McCain of 2008 can beat either of them. Now, the McCain of the Straight Talk Express, who was inexplicably popular with liberals, might have had a chance, but now that he has inextricably linked himself with the same political machine that was focused on tearing him down in 2000, he has no chance. He loses no matter who the Dems put up there.

  18. Brian  •  Mar 6, 2008 @2:43 pm

    This is why your party keeps losing. They don't understand the electorate. Every day that goes by with Obama and Clinton fighting each other makes it more likely that McCain will win – regardless of the eventual nominee. These two camps will begin to entrench and both sides will commit what are perceived as unforgivable offenses against the other.

    Hillary Clinton mathematically cannot go into that convention with a pledged delegate lead. She simply can't. So Camp Obama is going to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sen. Obama rightfully deserves to be the nominee. If Clinton figures out a way to overturn that – how on Earth can you possibly think that she will get any votes from the Obama camp? In their eyes, she will have stolen the nomination.