Can anyone stop Barack Obama?

After listening to a plethora of pundits the last two days, it's clear that most of them are finally starting to wake up to the tidal wave that is sweeping Barack Obama into the White House. To reiterate what should now be obvious, Obama's 8% point win was not:

• A slap at Hillary Clinton
• A result of the uniqueness of the Iowa electorate
• A result of Oprah's support

This election was decided long before Iowa...before Hillary Clinton was annointed as a sure thing....even before we knew who all of the candidates would be. The sleeping giant, the Ascendant Center, has been ignited. Barack Obama was the only one that could ignite it, and the power of what he has unleashed will stagger those few holdouts of the far left and right who can't quite understand why their disgusting divide and conquer strategy isn't working any more. The age of Karl Rove, George Bush, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Moveon.org is finally over.

I don't think even an unlikely, but always possible embarrassing gaffe can stop Obama now. As long as he does not join our sad history of assassinated messiah figures, wonderful times are ahead.

It's just too early

As I have written before, and as the article in last night's post intimates, Barack Obama has been criticized for being to vague in his ideals...too grandiose in his speeches...and too unwilling to offend possible voters.

Judging by the reaction - or rather lack of one - to his healthcare proposal, there's a better explanation...it's just too darn early for people to being paying attention. Candidates who explain specific steps they would take to combat serious issues are not going to get the attention they deserve until the number of viable candidates in both parties combined can be counted on one hand. Until then, those with the best fundraising efforts would be foolish to do anything other than wait for the financially malnourished among them to drop off the radar screen. Don't say anything stupid for the next 6 months in other words.

Barack's proposal has some interesting ideas, but as the Time article pointed out, it's not exactly revolutionary. That's ok. Momentum will continue to build for healthcare reform over the next few months. Michael Moore's summer movie "Sicko" should also put a little sizzle in the health care debate (Hopefully Moore can make a movie with some facts in it this time around).

Until then, Barack did just what he needed to do. He put out a fairly serious proposal with just enough detail to keep the naysayers at bay for a while. I suppose that could be viewed as calculating, but sometimes calculating is nothing more than common sense.

And couldn't we use a President with a little common sense?

Barack's health care proposal

Barack Obama is starting to get specific:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626105,00.html

More on this tomorrow night.

The gathering storm

Newt Gingrich was on "Meet the Press" today. Newt is one of those characters who everyone agrees has as much chance of winning the Presidency as I do, yet he enjoys remarkable regularity when it comes to being a guest on newsmaker shows. His penchant for controversial quotes probably helps in that regard. But the most interesting quote today from Newt wasn't the typical "speak before you think" bombast...it was actually quite perceptive:

"I mean, you look around the world, the forces of freedom are on retreat, the forces that are anti-freedom, pro-dictatorship, and, in some cases, purely evil are on offense. I agree with Senator Dodd (co-guest) that we need a dramatically expanded ability to use state craft. But I think it’s—I think you got to make any Iraq decision within the framework of this larger maelstrom of dangers that are growing across the planet."

While Newt seems incapable of understanding how we got to this growing maelstrom of dangers, he is absolutely dead on with his assertion.

The happy talk of "democracy on the march" from the neocons in the White House is a distant memory. It never existed in the first place, thanks to the incredible incompetence and arrogance of the Bush administration. But now, it's becoming plain that within a possibly very short time frame, we are going to be like the Roman empire in it's very last stages. Besieged on all fronts, rotten and corrupt within and lacking any moral sway.

The rise and fall of empires is a natural course of history, but never has one country lost so much wealth and power so quickly as the United States has under George Bush and his neocon puppeteers.

Newt sees it, although he refuses to understand why. By the time the next President is sworn in, many others will also see the danger of the growing maelstrom. As Iraq continues to disentegrate, the forces of evil grow ever stronger. It will take the greatest President in the history of our country to rescue us from the awful fate that rapidly approaches.

Please, someone...any candidate..step forward and tell us how we can save ourselves.

How to keep score

Now that the Democrats and Republicans each have one debate out of the way, it's obvious that we're going to have to wait a bit longer for meaningful debate on key issues. All the candidates are more concerned with their position in the polls than they are with addressing issues. That's fine. Soon the "never were" and "never could be" candidates will be eliminated for lack of funds.

When the field is effectively whittled down to the top three in each party, then it will be time to pay attention. But pay attention to what?

Try this...when the top candidates debate later this campaign season, keep a scorecard. Not a scorecard on which candidate has the most clever one liners, makes the most gaffes or has the most statements that you agree with. Instead, keep a scorecard for each time a candidate actually answers the question that was asked by the moderator.

One or more of the candidates by that time will have figured out that the electorate is no longer going to put up with "talking points" answers that have nothing to do with the question asked.

Example: "You (candidate x) have advocated an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, but many directly involved in the conflict say that would lead to chaos that would ultimately bring about more casualties than remaining would. Why are they wrong?"

Currently, this type of question elicits a prepared speech about how the Iraqis need to do more, how the other side (ie. Dems or Republicans) are the cause of why we are where we are now, how the war has been mismanaged and about how wonderful our troops are. Glittering generalities in other words.

In the past, this answer might have worked because people either weren't informed enough to see through the smokescreen, or because they were so disenchanted with the cynicism in politics that they had given up hope for an honest answer. Pundits will tell you that both of these reasons are still valid. Don't believe them.

There will be a candidate brave enough to answer tough questions with tough answers. A candidate strong enough to get past the fear of alienating voters by asking for sacrifice. A candidate smart enough to realize the time to speak the truth has finally aligned with the winning campaign strategy. We can handle it. Just give us the truth.

Get your scorecards ready....

Here comes Rudy

Rudy has figured it out.

During the Republican debate a few weeks ago, he stumbled trying to explain his position on abortion. Trying to be all things to all people, he alternately made it sound like he supported a woman's right to choose and judges who would abolish legal abortion.

That's yesterday's politics - trying to not offend the extremes of political thought.

Then last week it came to light that Rudy had given money to Planned Parenthood back in the 1990's. This revelation may have turned out to be the defining moment in Rudy's bid for the Republican nomination. If he had continued down the same track he was on, his response to questions this raised might have been, "While I did give money to Planned Parenthood, I believe abortion is wrong and will oppose it to the best of my ability if elected." This would be the "damage control" response, designed to get him back within the tolerance of the conservative base of the Republican party.

But instead Rudy opted to say what he thinks. Namely, that abortion ultimately is a woman's decision, even if he personally opposes it. This response won't win him any friends with the single issue crowd. In fact they'll probably write him off now. But Rudy realizes that winning the support of that segment would doom his overall electability because times have changed. The extremists no longer have the power. More importantly, Rudy decided it's time to say what he thinks. Saying how you really feel about an issue is a wonderfully liberating experience.

I'm expecting a re-energized Rudy Guiliani over the next few months - and the Democrats had better pay attention.

He said what?

Headlines lately have made Rudy Giuliani look like just another conservative ranter. "If Democrats win we'll have another 9/11 type attack," he supposedly said at a Republican fundraiser this past week.

That quote sure doesn't gibe with my conclusion that Rudy would run an upright campaign and is extremely worthy of the presidency. But what did Rudy really say? Turns out the quotes (consolidated) in the Washington Post are quite a bit more nuanced:

"We're going to win that war (on terrorism) whether there's a Republican president or a Democratic president or any other president. The question is going to be: How long does it take and how many losses will we have along the way? And I truly believe that if we go back on defense for a period of time, we're going to ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer. If one of them (Democrats) gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense. We've got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense."

It's just amazing how certain elements of the press try to inflame instead of educate. The Washington Post has great integrity, and got the quote right, but numerous other outlets quickly tried to stir up trouble. The Democrats in this example also are a sorry lot. Reactions to the speech ranged from indignation to disgust. Barack Obama said Rudy, "took the politics of fear to a new low."

Well Barack, let me tell you as one of your supporters...he didn't.

First of all there is a lot of truth to what Rudy said. If you go on defense against Islamic militants, we will suffer greater casualties and we will lose the war on terror. I have no doubt that several of the Democratic candidates (and many Democrats) do not fully understand the scope of the war we are in and the peril that we face. They are simply naive to think the isolationist policies they hold dear will protect us.

On the other hand, winning the war on terror requires more than brute force, aggressive interrogation tactics and a reduction in our personal freedoms. This is where I disagree with Rudy, although he has every right to say what he feels.

To win against Islamic militants takes a strong military approach - where appropriate. And ANY military action MUST go hand in hand with the following:

• A well thought out plan from the beginning to to the end including planning for what might go wrong and an attitude that acknowledges our purpose is not to spread American style democracy, but rather to help the locals live in peace in the way that best fits their culture. (i.e. lack of arrogance on our part)
• Truthful education of the American public on why the campaign is necessary and what the costs will be.
• Support from our allies.
• A robust plan for economic aid in the region.

As you can see, President Bush and the crazy neocons he fell in bed with could not pass even one item from this list when it comes to Iraq. Forget the debate on whether we're in a Vietnam-style quagmire. If only we were so lucky...

But deadlines for troop withdrawals, denials of how serious the threat is or playing politics by misquoting someone who is seriously (if a bit misguidedly) addressing the issue is no answer either.