Sunday, February 11, 2007

Obama declares candidacy for Vice-President & launches pre-emptive strike on Boomers.

To the surprise of no one, while standing in the footprints of Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama formally anounced his candidacy for the Vice Presidency of the United States. Some were surprised that he chose the announcement to launch a vitriolic attack against the Baby Boom generation saying [paraphrasing here, as I have not seen the actual transcript]:
"It is time to rip the reins of power from the hands of the Boomer generation! I ask you, what have the boomers given to this country? Two Presidents, that is what they have given us. Bill Clinton and George W Bush. The first impeached president since Andrew Johnson and the worst president in history. That is what they have given us and that is more than enough. This was the best the boomers had to offer this great country of ours. These are the representatives of their generation that they sent to lead us. My friends, my fellow Americans, we cannot risk another Boomer President! It is time to move on. It is time for a new generation of leadership."
Oh wait. That was not a paraphrase of Barack Obama's speech. That was actually a paraphrase of my December 13 post - Da Bears, Da Barack, Da Boomers. This is actually what Barack said:

“Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what’s needed to be done. Today we are called once more - and it is time for our generation to answer that call…Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age…. And as our economy changes, let’s be the generation that ensures our nation’s workers are sharing in our prosperity…. Let’s be the generation that ends poverty in America…. Let’s be the generation that finally tackles our health care crisis…. Let’s be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil…. Let’s be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here. Most of all, let’s be the generation that never forgets what happened on that September day and confront the terrorists with everything we’ve got.”

Once again, a hat-tip to the Carpetbagger Report, for pointing out that Barack used the word "generation" at least 12 times in the 20 minute speech. Apparently he is builiding his campaign on on a foundation of Baby Boomicide. One has to ask - why the generational focus? I submit, that this is a realistic political calculation by a young, self-assured, very smart, very ambitious politician, who understands that his path to the presidency requires a stepping stone as Vice-President.

A key element in the selection of any Vice-Presidential candidate, is to identify what constituency they bring to a ticket. From a purely political perspective, it is interesting to ask - Exactly what constituency does Barack Obama bring to a Democratic ticket? It is not his home state. Illinois is already True Blue. It is not the black vote, Hillary Clinton outpolls Barack Obama among blacks. But if Barack can bring a generational constiutency, if he can mobilize a demographic block that historically cannot even be bothered to vote, then Barack would be a formidable addition to any Democratic ticket. This is a campaign to capture that constituency and trade it for a spot on the ticket.

Obama for Vice-President!

Update: February 12, 2007
The Washington Post reports that "...Obama indicated in his earliest steps on the campaign trail that he considers Iraq a central distinction between himself and the rest of the Democratic field." Also know as the "It's the war, stupid" campaign strategy. Obama has a clear advantage with this strategy over other Dems. Republicans would do well to take note and get behind the one Republican who could neutralize the strategy with the American electorate in the general election - Chuck Hagel.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.


Eric Dondero said...

This is so exciting. We are about to witness the biggest contrast in ideology for President of the United States in our history.

One one side we have Hussein Obama. A guy who an IL Senate colleague of his said had a voting record "to the left of Mao Tse Tung." A guy who has a perfect 100 voting record from the Marxist ADA. A guy who attended a Madrassa in Indonesia as a child for 4 years and has an Islamic surname.

Contrast this with Rudy Giuliani, a libertarian Republican, fiscally conservative yet socially tolerant. Plus, Pro-Defense and Anti-Islamo-Fascist. A guy who told a Saudi Prince to shove his $10 million up his ass. A guy who the NY Times called a "budget slashing, privatizing Ayn Randian."

Folks you can't get a more extreme contrast than that. Leftwing Fascist versus a Freedom-loving Patriotic Libertarian Republican.

Libertarians for Giuliani at

mw said...

Eric, Eric, Eric,
Pull up a chair my friend. Let's talk.

First, thanks for the comment. I appreciate you stopping by our humble blog from time to time.

I'd like to offer you a little advice. You are clearly an advocate for a particularly Republican form of libertarianism. Equally clearly, you are expending a lot of effort and time to advance this agenda. Now, the problem is I don't think you are being particularly effective with your efforts. Let me explain why.

Let us deconstruct your comment. First there is this:
"On one side we have Hussein Obama. A guy who an IL Senate colleague of his said had a voting record "to the left of Mao Tse Tung."
Problem being, that the "IL Senate colleague" you are quoting is Republican State Senator Steve Rauschenberger, a partisan political opponent of Barack Obama, who has been breathing nothing but Barack's exhaust fumes for the last 10 years. He has about as much credibility regarding Obama as David Dinkins quotes have about Rudy Giuliani. I am sure I can find a lot of interesting Dinkin's quotes about Giuliani, but there is no point in that. It's just stupid. As stupid as quoting Rauschenbergrer on Obama.

Don't get me wrong. I've taken a look at your Republican Libertarian blog, Your Mainstream Libertarian blog, and your American Libertarian blog. I am pretty sure, that if you and I were to sit down over a beer, we would find ourselves more in agreement than disagreement about fundamental libertarian principles. I am even good with Giuliani. As I have outlined before, I am supporting a Republican for President in 2008 in order to maintain divided government. He is not my first choice, I'd make him 3rd or 4th on my list of Republican presidential candidates, behind Chuck Hagel and Ron Paul, tied with McCain.But, he'd make a fine President.

That said, this is where you are wrong;

1) If the last six years have taught us anything, it has taught us that tying the libertarian wagon exclusively to a Republican horse is a VERY BIG MISTAKE. The libertarian swing vote is a minority vote, maybe 10%. Libertarians will have political clout and ability to affect policy only to the degree that libertarians are not fused to one party or the other, but willing to shift major party affiliation from election to election in order to achieve libertarian objectives.

2) I, like you, like almost all Americans, support a strong defense and an effective prosecution of the War on Terror. Unlike you, but like the vast majority of Americans, I understand that that occupation of Iraq was a diversion from the war on Terror and a distraction from it. In fact Iraq was completely irrelevant to the war on terror until it became a safe haven and a recruitment poster and a training ground for Al Queda under an incompetent American occupation. Now we have a problem there that did not exist in Iraq until Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld created it. Let me repeat. We have a problem in Iraq that did not exist before this administration created it. My simple minded take is that those that supported the creation of this problem (like Giuliani) are not the best choice to be the ones to solve it. Hagel and Paul are both better choices from the Republican side.

3) Eric, you have to ask yourself - What are you really trying to accomplish? Are you trying to convince voters to support your candidate, or are you preaching to the (28% and shrinking) choir? Because if it is the former, then I can tell you for a fact, that ham-handed efforts like emphasizing Barack's middle name, or continuing to repeat completely false and discredited stories about him attending a madrassa school, or using pejoratives like "Marxist", "left wing fascist", and "islamo-fascist", are not doing anything to further your objective. In fact, to the degree that undecided voters associate your views with Giuliani, to that degree you are driving votes away from Giuliani with these tactics. Maybe you are rallying a small base. Maybe.

Thanks again for stopping by. Happy to help. Please feel free to drop by again if you need additional guidance.