Why Obama Can't, Won't (and Shouldn't) Win the Presidency

By its troubled Presidential "electability" history over the past five plus decades (with the exceptions of southerners, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and one-term Jimmy Carter) the democratic party seems to have a self-destructive penchant for otherwise nominating far left of center, northern Liberals who almost always go down to embarrassing defeat in the November elections.

Bill Clinton is, in fact, the only democrat to be elected to two Presidential terms since Franklin D. Roosevelt. But Clinton knew how to work the media; not like Reagan could; Reagan knew the game and played by his own rules. Clinton knew how to work the media much like a seasoned prostitute could really work a trick in a back alley. Besides, for some reason a president who has a sexual addiction seems to hold a fascination for a dummied-down nation of addicts and lazy but greedy misfits.

The very same groups who enthusiastically
backed and watched past elections go down to
defeat now back Obama and for all the wrong reasons

The all too familiar "red flags" for an inevitable November defeat are making their presence well known - particularly if one looks at recent polls. And take a look at this article, of all places, in the Black Star News: http://www.blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=3263

1. Obama is a northern liberal with a far "left of center" voting record from the Illinois State Senate. And while a U.S. Senator, Obama really hasn't "done" anything. He's only a mouth.

2. Obama lacks military and executive (Governorship) experience and was only elected to the United States Senate less than one year before beginning his quest for the US Presidency. (By contrast, Hillary Clinton has 8 years experience in the White House as First Lady and almost two terms as US Senator.)

3. A series of (recently exposed) controversial associations and highly questionable comments from either the candidate himself or his wife have raised doubts regarding Obama's sense of patriotism, understanding or connection to rural America, and love for country -- things that generally don't play well in middle America.

4. A poor performance in the most recent debate between Obama and Clinton revealed a candidate easily irritated and annoyed with uncomfortable questions and offering less than adequate responses to them.

5. A tendency to become arrogant or blame either his opponent or the press when things don't go Obama's way. He lacks maturity.

6. Successful attempts to block Michigan and Florida votes from being counted or conduct do-over primaries. These strategic and important states can be expected to go Republican in the November election, despite the union influences.

7. Still has links to underground black militants who bombed the U.S. Capital, who have raised millions of dollars for him.

8. I don't care what flimflam artists like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party on the local, state, national level is in shambles ironically like the shortcomings of the Republican Party (but more so): greed, hubris, arrogance, selfishness, personal gain. Anyone who says they are Republican, I laugh at them; if they say they are Democrat, I want to vomit. This is no longer about parties, it is about the country's very real survival as a nation. If you are still talking party lines, you are almost talking treason.

All of the above spell a candidacy in trouble and is doomed to staggering defeat in November.

Exit polls from the most primaries show Obama having significant trouble with "White, blue collar and rural voters, Catholics, Jews, Latinos, Seniors and women."

Who does that leave?

African Americans, so called, "Latte Liberals," most rock stars and Hollywood elites, affluent, left wing cerebrals and organizations such as "Move-On.org," and the so-called, "youth vote."

The very same groups who enthusiastically backed and watched go down to defeat, John Kerry in the most recent 2004 Presidential election. This despite the fact, Kerry was a former war hero with decades of US Senatorial experience.

It is doubtful despite being nominated, Barack Obama would even be able to win the states that John Kerry did. Obama should be beaten worse than Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale or Carter. I doubt it will be a run away election for McCain, but I will have my champagne ready and drink to the candidate that never was, despite being created by the liberal media, the so-called "drive by media."

For one matter, Obama's Republican opponent, John McCain is much more appealing to Independents and centrist (so-called, "Reagan") democrats than George W. Bush.

Otherwise democratic "blue" states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, California and even New York could be in play for McCain in a potential matchup against Barack. Obama would lose all of the south and most of the states he had beaten Hillary Clinton during the primaries such as Utah, Nebraska, Idaho, South Dakato and Wyoming. These are traditional "red states" that virtually never go democratic in Presidential elections.

Meanwhile, Obama had lost to Clinton almost all of the "swing/purple" states (with the exception of Missouri which was razor tight) that are usually so necessary to a democratic win in Presidential contests - Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and California. Clinton supporters are overly emotional, angry activists and despise Obama for doing so well and winning the nomination. They are more ready to vote for someone else (anyone else) except for Obama. And, although Obama wasn't on the ballot when an unofficial primary was held in Michigan, supporters of Obama and John Edwards had opportunity to vote "Uncommitted." Even so, Hillary Clinton handily won against both candidates combined and she isn't even the nominee.

What states could Obama reasonably be guaranteed to win in a contest against McCain?

Illinois (Obama's home state) and Vermont (very liberal). Possibly, Wisconsin. But even the very liberal Massachusetts (where McCain now leads Obama in a potential matchup) is not guaranteed for Obama.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton played well in almost all of the big states, and was guaranteed New York, California, Massachusetts, and even would have won at least one state in the South - Arkansas.

It would no doubt be tight between Clinton and McCain; tt would not have been a blowout, either way. Democrats would have had good chance to win the White House if Clinton was the nominee. It has virtually no chance now that the nomination mantle has gone to Obama.

Obama frequently says in speeches, "We are not red states or blue states. We are the United States!"

That is true, as corny as he said it.

But, as such, the only democrats who have reasonable chance of winning Presidential elections are those who are perceived as political "centrists," representing different dynamics of the country - not just the far left or Hollywood and northern elitists.

Walter