Dark Star

American Thinker: Why Obama Will Lose

Moments of crisis have their purpose, not least of which is to witness how those weathering them will measure up to much greater challenges ahead. The recent financial market tumble afforded priceless opportunities to rate the strength of character of those to whom we may soon be yielding the power to govern. It is noteworthy that when the opportunity arose to display the desired strengths upon which voters will be counting on beyond voting day, Barack Obama -- not John McCain -- chose instead to mock the presumed shortcomings of his opponent.

This particular crisis also furnished Obama and his loyal media posse with an unparalleled opportunity to reinforce the central theme of his campaign, which casts his opponent as the proud and fated heir of the totality of George W. Bush's legacy. The favored three-pronged Obama strategy now consists of dissociating his own party of any shared responsibility for the debacle, refocusing the blame for the negatives on his opponent and taking front stage as the deliverer from all our calamities. But this strategy is bound for failure.

The first reason why Obama will be defeated is that this hour of crisis has uncovered a fierce vein of opportunism in the man. This pathological streak, characterized by a blind determination to succeed at all costs, was prominently displayed in his gleeful impetuosity to capitalize on the media's alarmist reports of a complete financial "meltdown".

During this financial collapse's most climactic moments, Obama directed his efforts at pandering to a somewhat misguided public discontent and stoking the embers of panic, rather than drafting alternative solutions for addressing the economic imbalances that precipitated the crisis in the first place. For a campaign that was pioneered on the pledge to steer off petty attacks, these types of knee-jerk reactions now define both the man and his campaign as both marked by extreme lapses of cognitive dissonance.

The second reason for the coming fall of Obama is that, while bad tidings may draw some attention, they are seldom guaranteed to encourage sustained support for the messenger. Obama's own predecessor is well acquainted with the unintended consequences of placing too much emphasis on the politics of doom and derision. Most people are eventually worn out and disillusioned by the constant drum of negativity. Other than the static mantra of "change we can believe in" -- recently modified to the slightly more imperious "change we need" -- Obama has little to offer in the way of any substantial alternatives to offset his ominous outlook of a future absent his wisdom and guidance at the helm, which leads one to believe that about the only thing that he can guarantee will change are his campaign slogans.

The third reason for Obama's eventual defeat is that -- in spite of his hopes for the triumph of image over substance -- he seems not to have yet assimilated the rather basic political maxim that words and deeds which project mutually contradictory messages can easily become very powerful weapons in the hands of one's adversary. To wit, few things appeared more contrived than the impassioned appeals on behalf of the downtrodden and the stern words of rebuke against the excesses of ruthless Wall Street profiteers still in his breath, as he boarded his personal jet to join in a $28,500 (hat tip to readers for correcting the figure) per plate fund raising fete with the most fiscally intemperate of our species: the lavish Hollywood glitterati. Needless to say, such glaring inconsistencies leave Obama wide open to the same charges of hypocrisy he has more than once indignantly leveled against the opposition.

The fourth reason is Obama's curious -- but not wholly unpredictable -- decision to yoke himself with Joe Biden, the gaffe-prone and mischievously wry senator from Delaware, whose core ideology is virtually indistinguishable from his own. Set against McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, which brought a new level of political relevance to the office of vice-president, the democratic ticket has suddenly emerged as the one that offers the least opportunities for distinct philosophical approaches to today's sundry economic and social issues. It is no wonder the McCain-Palin ticket has become so attractive to a country that -- contrary to the current progressive dogma -- is very willing to embrace diversity.

And finally, with the exigencies of the moment calling for more desperate measures will come the re-awakening in Obama's mind of the notion that sooner or later he will have to conjure up the uncharitable verdict of racial malfeasance as the cause for this country's hesitancy in exalting him to the lofty echelons of American politics. No longer will he forego requiring votes from the reluctant as guilt offerings to atone for their prejudice laden indecision, or employing subsidiary bully pulpits to showcase his own personal (and mostly imagined) upheaval as a contestant of unwonted pedigree amidst what he and his minions insist on characterizing as a hopelessly racist electorate. And the more egregious these calls to penance for racial sins at the voting booth become, the more he will incur the disdain of those who silently feel that it should only be called racism when one votes or doesn't vote for a candidate because of the color of his skin.

I'm not sure if it all adds up to "Obama will lose," but certainly it's why he should lose.