The New Willard

Dear readers,

I’m posting primarily on Intelligent Discontent, for the moment.

After yesterday’s primary, there has been a lot of speculation that Obama, if nominated, would have trouble winning over a majority of white voters. Would it matter even if he couldn’t? Could he still win the election? No, to the first; yes, to the second.

Of course, winning a majority of white votes would be advantageous because it would, most likely, ensure Obama as our next president, but it’s not essential, because it’s nothing new:

… the historic challenge that any Democrat faces in winning whites in a general presidential election — where no Democrat has won a majority of the white vote since Lyndon Johnson did in 1964.

We’ve had Democrats as president since 1964. It’ll just be the same old fight every Democrat has had to fight since the 60s. The only reason it’s an issue is because of Obama’s race, but in reality, he’s not up against anything all that new.

In place of repeating what has already been said, I urge you to read this post from4&20 Blackbirds.

4&20 Blackbirds provides some excellent analysis on the Ron Paul Revolution.

As a college student, I have seen a major shift from the people once in the pro-Nader camp to the pro-Paul camp and, honestly, it has confused me to no end. Pauls’ speeches are great and his approach is seductive, but that’s about it. Once you study his policy it gets a little ridiculous and contradictory.

The point is that just because some one is a rebel doesn’t mean they’re right. Counter culture seems to love Ron Paul, but it just doesn’t make any sense. It makes you question the “liberals” that support him - is Ron Paul just a rebel heartthrob who will leave you the next morning saying, “jeez, that was a mistake”?

Obama is turning his attention towards McCain and reminding Democrats “that time is running out for Democrats to start defining their Republican opponent.” So something good did come out of Pennsylvania: Obama is now moving past the primary debate and moving with more veracity into the general election debate.

Mr. Obama only mentioned Mrs. Clinton by name once in his remarks at a rally here late Tuesday night, when he congratulated her on winning the Pennsylvania primary. He referred to Mr. McCain seven times, a pointed reminder to Democrats of the challenge that lies ahead.

Democrats, in general, seem to be following suit. The general isn’t all that far away and while Clinton has done a great job defining Obama as a soft, inexperienced leader, little has been done to define McCain as, well, insane.

It’s about time we looked past this admittedly exciting primary and start going after McCain, because, I for one, can’t bare the thought of another four years of failure.

Clinton won Pennsylvania today (as expected), but that doesn’t amount to much - she still can’t win:

The dynamics of the race are the same as they’ve been for more than two months. Obama is the front-runner, and California-based Democratic consultant Dan Newman points out that is more important the closer the campaign comes to the end of the primary season.

“He’s content to essentially run out the clock with his narrow lead, while she needs something dramatic to happen,” Newman said. “A one-run advantage in the first inning isn’t a big deal, but a one-run lead in the ninth looms large.”

Clinton now faces a dwindling number of contests, and she’s at a steep financial disadvantage.

However, should Clinton be our candidate?

In Pennsylvania, Clinton won with the support of whites, women and older voters, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks.

Clinton won three very important demographics - three demographics that will be key come November. Additionally, periodicals like Canada’s National Post are highlighting a very important issue: is Obama iconic enough of America to be president?

If he becomes the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, Sen. Barack Obama will lose the general election for this reason: When the smiles and platitudes are set aside, Obama’s campaign and the philosophy of his cadre amount to one big put-down of America.

Anomalous among Western leaders, the president of the United States serves as head of both state and government. Moreover, he is elected directly by the voters, unlike in a parliamentary system whereby a leader attains power through the success of his party. As such, the president represents something very personal to Americans. He is, for four or more years, the personification of their country, embodying the aspirations and goodness of the land that they love. A president may disappoint after assuming office, but America is not in the habit of electing candidates who hold their country in contempt.

Not only have the comments of Obama’s wife, Michelle (who has referred to America as “downright mean” and stated that she was not proud of her country until her husband started winning primaries) and his minister, Jeremiah Wright (whose hateful, anti-white, anti-American diatribes are available for sale in Obama’s church, or for free on YouTube) revealed the tired, leftist scorn for America that Obama represents — the Senator’s own remarks have exposed this ugly, unelectable side.

Here’s the thing: both attacks on Obama fail. On the demographics debate, all three demographics carried by Clinton will still probably vote for Obama in a general election; perhaps they will vote for him in smaller numbers, but he should still carry them. As important, is the fact that Obama has energized a demographic of voters that simply used to not vote:

Underscoring the race’s excitement, more than one in 10 voters Tuesday had registered with the state’s Democratic party since the beginning of the year. And about six in 10 of them were voting for Obama.

Now, onto The National Post-type of attack on Obama: that he’s too anti-American to win. This is an important issue, but the Post gets it wrong. Please see my previous post “Finding our Narrative,” which examines the new pro-American narrative created by the Democratic nominees - it’s realistic and impassioned. The narrative that Obama is pushing is this: Bush and his cronies have made America weak and that’s not the way it should be; we’re going to make America great again.

Additionally, the analysis coming from the Post is a bit premature. The Post is trying to create a parallel between the initial missteps of the Kerry campaign in 2004 with the “missteps” of the Obama campaign and the parallel simply doesn’t work. Obama, unlike Kerry, answers criticism without flinching and makes those that criticize him look foolish and shallow.

However, the issues that The National Post brings up will be an issue in the general election - I just think that Obama, unlike Kerry, can beat it.

It’s been a long, bruise inducing primary season and I’m ready for it to be over; I’m ready to take on McCain and get this country back on track.

However, there is a lot of good that has come out of this primary: the democratic process being executed to its fullest, reasonable extent; passionate masses come out, insisting on creating the America they cherish; high voter turnout that will hopefully, and most likely, spill over into the November general election.

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the Democratic nominees have been forced to create a coherent, tangible Democratic narrative of America; a narrative that is far more powerful than the Republican Party’s old and tired narrative of American righteousness and perfection.

Democrats believe in the righteousness of America through righteous choice that must be chosen, it is not inherent. The narrative that has been formed is this: America is on a never ending journey towards betterment and the Democrats are the ones that will keep us on the road and not pulled over at a pit stop, or on a horrible detour (thanks Bush).

The narrative is of hope, courage, strength, intelligence, and resolve. It’s a narrative that I think all Americans can relate to and believe in because it is the most realistic and true narrative. This is especially true when compared to the overly idealistic narrative of the Republicans, which refuses to accept anything that threatens to question the idea that America is in a state of stagnant perfection.

The Democrats’ narrative is that America finds its perfection in its ability to always work towards perfection.

I like the second narrative, but maybe that’s just because I’m a bit of an impassioned, enthusiastic realist.

4&20 Blackbirds just recently posted about “A Very Worthy Cause”: Welcome Home Montana.

[Welcome Home Montana] is a group of local businesses with the goal of providing an extended support system for military service personnel, active and veterans.

Absolutely a worthy endeavor, Welcome Home Montana is ready and willing to include other local businesses that wish to throw their hats into the effort.

This is a great effort and I hope it will expand across the state and be modeled elsewhere.

Please visit the Welcome Home Montana website.

Tomorrow, Hillary Clinton will be on “Good Morning America” tomorrow morning (Tuesday, April 22nd) and, well, she’s really gone off the deep end:

ABC News’ Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

One of Obama’s latest ads has this to say about Hillary,

“Sen. Clinton has internalized a lot of the strategies, the tactics that have made Washington such a miserable place.”

The ad hits it right on the money. Not only is Hillary willing to say anything to get the nomination, she thinks that turning into a hawkish Republican will get her there. What is she thinking? Americans don’t want more of the neocons’ failed policy of unquestioning aggression - that’s why Democrats were expected to win this November.

Has she gone mad? Who’s telling her that this is a strategy? “Yes” to the first and “who knows!” to the second.

In addition to Hillary’s horrifying approach on foreign policy, she put out this brand new, fear mongering ad:

Obama quickly responded with this ad:

Who would you rather vote for? Clinton’s campaigning has entered the realm of the surreal.

From The Washington Post,

The armed Islamist movement Hamas is prepared to accept Israel as a neighbor if the Palestinian people approve the terms for peace, former president Jimmy Carter and the group’s exiled leadership said Monday following a visit to the region that included seven hours of negotiations…

…Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, said his trip had shown the value of negotiating with Hamas leaders, something Israel and the United States have refused to do.

“We do not believe that peace is likely, and we are certain that peace is not sustainable, unless a way is found to bring Hamas into the discussions in some way,” Carter said in an address to the Israeli Council on Foreign Relations before flying back to the United States. “The present strategy of excluding Hamas and excluding Syria is just not working.”

What does this tell us? Maybe Obama isn’t so wrong about his approach to foreign policy: America has to talk to its enemies. The least that Carter’s trip shows us is that meeting with our “enemies” won’t bring an end to the world; the most that Carter’s trip shows us is that it can be productive for us to meet with our “enemies.”

Perhaps Obama’s approach to foreign policy is, in fact, more enlightened than Clinton’s approach.

In all fairness, however, Obama “does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.” Additionally, the success of Carter’s visit and Hamas’ new statement is questionable, but what is the worst that can happen? Will there be more violence in the Middle East? Will their be more tension between Hamas and the Israel? No.

The chance for a positive outcome from meeting with an “enemy,” without question, outweighs the nonexistent problems that could result.

Perhaps Obama’s approach is not exactly as progressive as Carter’s, but it’s better than the hard line approach Clinton choose to embrace.