Christopher Hitchens — writer extraordinaire — wonders why Obama runs the risk of joining Michael Dukakis on the ash heap of Presidential history. Words like “vapid, hesitant and gutless” are bandied about.
Last week really ought to have been the end of the McCain campaign. With the whole country feeling (and its financial class acting) as if we lived in a sweltering, bankrupt banana republic, and with this misery added to the generally Belarusian atmosphere that surrounds any American trying to board a train, catch a plane, fill a prescription, or get a public servant or private practitioner on the phone, it was surely the moment for the supposedly reform candidate to assume a commanding position. And the Republican nominee virtually volunteered to assist that outcome by making an idiot of himself several times over, moving from bovine and Panglossian serenity about the state of the many, many crippled markets to sudden bursts of pointless hyperactivity such as the irrelevant demand to sack the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
And yet, and unless I am about to miss some delayed “groundswell” or mood shift, none of this has translated into any measurable advantage for the Democrat. There are three possible reasons for such a huge failure on Barack Obama’s part. The first, and the most widely canvassed, is that he is too nice, too innocent, too honest, and too decent to get down in the arena and trade bloody thrusts with the right-wing enemy. (This is rapidly becoming the story line that will achieve mythic status, along with allegations of racial and religious rumor-mongering, if he actually loses in November.) The second is that crisis and difficulty, at home and abroad, sometimes make electors slightly more likely to trust the existing establishment, or some version of it, than any challenger or newcomer, however slight. The third is that Obama does not, and perhaps even cannot, represent “change” for the very simple reason that the Democrats are a status quo party.
Much more at the link above…

Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
I only read your excerpt, and will read the whole later tonight, but on Hitchen’s first theory, that Obama’s too nice to get down into the dirt in a campaign. Just ask his former Illinois political sponsor, Alice Palmer.
I love Hitch. He is a pain in the ass about religion but he always goes after these idiot leftists with great zeal. I am thinking none of his theorys. McCain deconstructed Obama to the point where Obama couldn’t really get back to where he was before. He hasn’t done anything really to make himself a clear front runner.
Think about it, Clinton himself said today he wouldn’t bad mouth McCain….interesting eh?
Watch October. Mac will kick ass….I got a gut feeling.
Rufus… yeah I had the same feeling. Saul Alinsky would beg to differ too.
Stephanie… if this economy doesn’t pull out somehow I think McCain is toast. I think he’ll kick ass too. But to what effect? I’m not pessimistic, but I am worried a bit.
Obama is not man enough to do anything that will be attached to him. It’s always his surrogates that whisper the Clintons are racists and when he makes fun of Palin with the lipstick comment (one all the audience knew exactly where it was aimed) he wimps out and says that’s not what he meant – and the media play along.
Obama is a snake and if the media were doing their job every day would be Whacking Day in Springfield.
Hitchens is definately an interesting read. As always he pulls no punches, I mean just look at the article title.