There has been a lot of chatter about why the President-in-waiting-as-selected-by-People-Magazine has found himself tied in the national polls. He's even lost ground in key battleground states. Usually the announcement of a V.P. pick gives a bounce up in the polls. Not so for Obama, the Gallup poll even shows him losing ground following the announcement. So what is going on with the chosen one? Is Biden that bad a choice?
I don't think so. I thought Biden was the best choice Obama had--that's not to say a good choice--with the finalist that were being mentioned. I think the real problem is that the Democrats have yet to fix their problem with national security. I'd say it was an image problem, but the reality is that they don't "look weak" on national security--as if it's a big, national misunderstanding about their hawkish ways--in fact, they are weak on national security. Huge portions of the Democratic constituency--and a vocal portion of it at that--long for a weak America. They will not say it that way, but to follow their suggestions to their logical conclusions, that's what would result. Therefore, they are nominating a man who made much of his primary-election headway saying his opponent was too hawkish and he was the only dove.
In dangerous times, however, the general population doesn't look for a dovish president. Even though Iraq--more so during the primary and pre-primary seasons than now--was unpopular, it doesn't mean most Americans simply want us to run and hide from the world. And they certainly don't want us chatting it up with tyrants with a false notion that "if we could all simply sit down and talk, we'd have world peace." Most people understand that talking about problems works for fair-minded people with a common goal, disagreeing on policies. But that is not who we are dealing with when talking about Al Qaeda, Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea. Their leaders are, simply, bad. They want our end and their expansion. There is no middle ground when Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map." What exactly would President Obama have to talk about on that point? Where's the compromise? "Maybe we could just wipe half of Israel off the map."?!?!
Given the fundamental misunderstanding of human nature at the core of much of Democrats' leaderships' beliefs, the average American simply will not trust them to lead. Of course, national security is not the only issue in a race, so Obama could certainly still win. It is, however, a very important factor. And that factor, and the lack of trust Americans have in the Democrats on this issue, will be a huge weight around their necks. There is hardly any other way to explain why Obama and McCain are tied, instead of Obama enjoying a 20 point lead--given his 'newness', cash, charisma, and speaking ability compared to McCain.
This poll, in fact, confirms my hunch on people's thinking on this point. Here's some key portions:
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Wednesday indicates that the American public considers presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain better than Obama on terrorism and Iraq, and voters consider McCain a stronger leader who would have better judgment in an international crisis.
Fifty-eight percent of those questioned think Obama can handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief, but that pales in comparison to the 78 percent who feel that way about McCain.
By a 51 percent to 41 percent margin, voters regard the senator from Arizona as the stronger leader, and they think he would have better judgment than Obama in an international crisis by a 52 percent to 43 percent spread.
10 to 20 point leads in categories affecting security-related leadership. And hence, the race is tied. Tonight the DNC convention is about "Securing America's Future"--and the above numbers are why they've chosen that theme. We'll see how they do, but my hunch is that it'll be like putting lipstick on a pig. The fundamental problem is their one-world-kumbaya approach, even if wrapped in hawkish language tonight, will not make most Americans feel safe. And that feeling is almost always reflected in how people vote. If we are blown up, it doesn't really matter how the economy is doing or how much free health care has been given out by the federal government.
Americans have consistently recognized this fact when going to the polls. Other than Bill Clinton, we've never elected someone seen as "weak"on security compared to his opponent. Keep in mind, before the late 60's, the Democrats were seen as strong on national security, so the debates focused more on domestic policy. Everyone thought a strong America was good. Truman dropped bombs and fought Communists, Kennedy went toe to toe with the Soviets and Cubans, Johnson waged war, and Carter was a USNA graduate and served on a nuclear submarine. Plus, Carter was coming in post-Watergate when national security took back seat to domestic issues. The same is true when Clinton was elected. The Cold War was over, and America was not yet focused on Muslim extremism and terrorism--or China. Hence, we took our "break from history" and have since learned our lesson--history never stops.
Now, in a time of war, I very much doubt we elect the weaker of two candidates on national security, even though that candidate is so charismatic. We'll see tonight if the DNC can convince America otherwise.
Man your battle stations,
Thomas More
Comments