Obama is not progressive, perhaps not liberal either
I think that most readers of this blog would be able to agree that the event of John McCain, whom I have the misfortune to claim as my Senator, winning the presidential election would just be pathetic beyond measure.
Barrack Obama should have 2008 in the bag. His name should be synonymous with awesome. People should be running down the streets raving about how President Obama will save them from the unmitigated disaster of the last eight years.
However, his lack-luster win in a brutal primary, followed by slippings in national polls, seems to suggest one of two things: Americans are criminally stupid, or Obama, and whomever runs his campaign, is awe-inspiringly incompetent.
I’m going with the second option.
Wait, what? I do think that the majority of the American population should read up on basic knowledge a bit more. It’s not like I harbor illusions that every American has a concrete and logical opinion about things like abortion and the economy.
Though, The American public has always been willfully uninformed. Obama and his camp should know this is nothing new. What we are informed on, however, is what a shitbag President Bush is and how Congress has failed to do anything but sit on their collective asses and do some navel-gazing.
Newflash to Obama: people really don’t like the status-quo. 92% of them are not a bunch of evangelical god-bags. Practically every publication in the world talks about how nobody can afford to fill up their cars anymore. Our debt is rising at double-digit percentage points every year, faster than our incomes and faster than inflation. Most people are not harboring illusions that their boss and their company is going to pay them well, or that they will be able to retire in style.
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who might be responsible for this mess. Perhaps it’s the same party that got us involved in the Iraqi Occupation1. Nah.
Instead, Obama would like us to realize that ChangeTM only happens when you pander to oil barons, coal barons, crazy constitution-ignoring lunatics tapping your phone, war-mongers2, rabid evangelicals, those that think homosexuality is a disease, anti-abortionists3, conservatives calling themselves centrists, xenophobic Muslim-hating morons, people who really hate uppity women and uppity women talking about sexism, people who hate black preachers who might be pissed off about something called racism, lunatics hiding behind empty words like “patriotism”, Democrats who think DNC fascism and repressing anyone that doesn’t want to pretend in unity wins them allies, and those wanting to shut up hopeful First Ladies that aren’t so happy about America4.
Is there a single issue that Obama isn’t ready to cede ground on? I’m all for getting things done in Washington, but not at the expense of human rights both at home and abroad. For someone that blazed onto the scene with much progressive fanfare of his unequivocal anti-war stances and pro-abortion sentiments, it’s sure become obvious that Obama is beginning to think that he should cater to the center instead of to the left, and that he is willing and able to give up positions that he would like to us to believe were cemented and nonnegotiable.
I am, no doubt, the absolute last person that would ever be elected to any sort of public office. I’m much too brusque, radical, and aggressive. Nevertheless, I believe that the biggest way Obama’s campaign is cinching a loss or a needlessly close race is the same reason why radicals, like me, are so angry:
Obama is catering to middle-class heterosexual white Christian men before all other groups.
The status-quo and socialization teaches us that the group Obama is most catering his message to is considered the “average”. A basic perusal of the sorry state of our diversity in governance also shows that the most ass-kissing is being done to the subset of Americans most likely to already run the country (and thus, be responsible for its resemblance to a shithole). If you wish to appeal to people dissatisfied with the status-quo, it’s probably not good idea to give the status-quo handouts and compromise and then pretend like anyone actually expects you to change anything.
Furthemore, Obama’s perception of the “average voter” is flawed in two parts:
1) Most Americans are not middle-class heterosexual white Christian men. 74% of the American population is white. Thus, 37% of the population are white men. If 80% of our population is Christian, that means about 30% of Americans are white Christian men. Subtracting the portion of the population that considers themselves gay or bisexual leaves us with 29% of the population that are white heterosexual Christian men. The middle class (with the exclusion of the working class and below, and upper class and above, which I will define as those making between $35,000 – $150,000 per year) number about 54% of the population. Which means that the percent of America that is average, the “majority”, and white middle-class heterosexual Christian men is a measly 16% of the population. Catering your political message to only completely appease 16% of the population (and only those that don’t harbor some sympathy for non-Christians, women, gays, and “minorities”) is a shockingly stupid way to win a general election.
2) Of all demographics, middle-class heterosexual Christian white men are some of the most likely not to vote Democrat. Historically, the strongest base of the Democratic party has been the working class, women, minorities, immigrants, Catholics, and other non-Christians. Whereas, the Republican party has consistently had an edge or blatant majority with men, the upper-middle class, the upper class, whites, and conservative Christians.
It should be obvious that catering to a “middle” that is only 16% of the population (or even 32%, if you want to include women, which Obama has not been doing much for as evidenced by abortion equivocations and dismissal of Clinton’s base’s concerns) when that middle is more likely to vote Republican any way is about as stupid as you can get.
The past eight years have been historic for how enraged and alienated they have made the lower classes, women, homosexuals, leftist Democrats, pro-abortionists, environmentalists, and anti-war protesters. With the economy spiraling downwards, people falling out of the middle class at unprecedented rates, and sexism finally taking center stage as a real issue, where is Obama?
There is a simmering mass of undirected resentment for the status-quo in the hearts of many, even the majority, of Americans. Obama’s supporters proletise about how eloquent and inspiring a speaker their candidate is. If he’s so brillant, why the hell can’t he speak to the majority of the population that wants, desperately, for things to improve?
The answer is startlingly easy: if people are dissatisfied with the status-quo, you should not be recruiting those who are members of it at the expense of those who are not. If Obama continues to do so, he might lose the election. For people like me that are not even happy to chose between a centrist who would compromise with my rights for power and a nut-job Republican, this state of affairs is mind-numbingly depressing and pathetic.
We have two candidates. One compromises with the status quo, the other speaks to the portion of the status quo that is delusional. Nobody speaks for the margins of society, whom are actually a majority. At this juncture, nobody should be surprised about Obama’s lackluster poll standings. I certainly won’t be all that shocked either if Obama gets elected and turns out to be a compromiser with crooks or a doormat to the economic war machine.
Nothing is more pathetic that watching two men that just don’t get it, squabble over the votes of 16% of the population.
 I absolutely refuse to give this monumental cock-up any sort of legitmacy by calling it a “war”. It’s a fucking occupation. We’re killing people who think they ought to run their country, because it’s theirs, so that we can carve up their natural resources for our own profits. I’m actually being nice by calling it an occupation and not a “clusterfuck of self-aggrandized war-profiteering genocidal douchebags”.
 Obama voted “yes” on some of the very same pro-war resolutions Clinton did. Which means his vaulted “anti-war” position is an overstated smelly sack of dog poo. When he said “I was always against the war”, he meant “always” as in “initially, and only quietly” and by “war” he means “resolutions to start the war, but I voted for those to send more troops over to die afterwards, just like everyone else”. When he says, “I was one of the most vocal anti-war politicians” he’s also conveniently forgetting “nuts” like Kucinich or Dobbs or Paul (hell even Edwards was better than him) who wouldn’t vote for anything remotely pro-war and pro-war funding without a gun to their head.
 From the linked article: “Meanwhile, Obama offered an artful dodge to the question of when a human deserves rights. ‘Whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade,’ he said. Like many of his responses that night, it was a long, careful, nuanced plowing of middle ground. He did not suggest that the only rights that matter are a woman’s over her body. He also affirmed his moral dimensions of the issue: he noted his willingness to limit late-term abortions, provided there is an exception if a woman’s health is at risk; and he talked about finding the resources to help women who choose to keep their baby, and about trying to reduce the need for abortions in the first place.” Sounds like ceding ground at the expense of women’s right to bodily autonomy to me.
 It’s extremely insulting the lengths the Obama campaign is going to to make sure that Michelle Obama doesn’t make any more of her “I’m proud to be an American for the first time” remarks that might give the impression that she’s a woman with her own, very critical, opinion. The new emphasis on her motherhood and style over her brains and positions leads me to believe that his campaign has decided that outside the DNC, Michelle Obama should just look pretty and keep quiet.