Victor Davis Hanson asks the question, “How did the we end up with Barak Obama as the (presumptive) Democratic nominee?”
One wonders how the United States has come to the brink of nominating and probably electing someone with almost no experience as either an executive or national legislator, replete with ratings and rankings that suggest he will be about the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern.
He then goes on to list various policy failures and screw-ups by the Republicans that would presumably lead voters to go for anybody who promised change, especially if that person happens to be a likable, compelling speaker who is consistently handled with kid gloves by the media.
Far be it from me to try to correct a scholar like VDH, but Republican policies don’t have anything to do with it. The reason the Democrats have selected Barak Obama is the same reason they select every presidential candidate: the Democratic primaries are a process by which every person who has a chance to win the general election is eliminated. Obama is the Democrat least likely to win, therefore, he is the nominee, and no other reasons are significant.
Let’s look at the products of the Democratic presidential primaries over the last 40 years:
Hubert Humphrey – Pounded.
George McGovern – Historic landslide.
Jimmy Carter – Won because he had the good fortune to run against a guy who was appointed vice president and then ascended to the presidency when the man who appointed him resigned in disgrace. And it was still a close race. And then Carter got thrashed four years later.
Walter Mondale – Historic landslide.
Michael Dukakis – Clobbered.
Bill Clinton – Became president with 43% of the popular vote (thank you, Ross Perot).
Al Gore – Couldn’t win his own home state. Never mind all the other hoo-hah; if he had done that, he’d be president.
John Kerry – Lost, in spite of the fact that all the Democrats had spent the previous four years fuming over losing in 2000 and counting the days until they could unseat Bush.
Do you see a pattern here? Say all you want about Obama’s charisma and how he’s sitting in the catbird seat. He is going to get absolutely fustigated in the general election. That may sound crazy now, but mark it down, note the date and circle it on your calendar. I will stand behind it. Obama is going to lose huge.
Why? Two reasons. People may act like it’s not happening, but deep down, they know that we’re in the middle of a global war against Islamic fanatics. With that in mind, with guys named “Yasim” and “Ayman” and “Imad” attacking or threatening to attack us every day, Americans are never going to put a guy named “Barak Obama” in the White House. If his name were “Tom Smith,” I’d give him half a chance.
Except for reason #2: We don’t know a whole lot about Obama right now, and the media doesn’t seem terribly interested in digging up anything of substance. But what we do know paints him as an old school, hard-line, hard-left socialist. Eventually (thank you, Internet) that’s going to come out, and the general electorate is not going to dig it at all.
Coincidentally, old school socialism is part of what makes a candidate so popular among the Democratic base. Which is why they so often end up getting their respective clocks cleaned in November. I’m telling you right now, look at the history and get ready for another beat down this year. McCain ain’t great, but he has the good fortune of running against the Democratic primary winner.