It is hard to see who can stop Senator Barack Obama becoming the next President of the United States. He has built up an excitement such as no candidate has created since President Kennedy in 1960. He is, in my view, a better speaker than Kennedy. Like Kennedy, he combines personal magnetism with a strong appeal to American idealism.
Like Kennedy, he is young and speaks for the new generation of American politics. By ordinary political reckoning, 2008 ought to be the Democrats’ year. In 2006 they captured both houses of Congress in mid-term elections.
There are, of course, hypothetical events that could change everything. There could be an attack on Mr Obama himself, but he is protected by the Secret Service. There could be an action by al-Qaeda, which would refocus American anxiety on the threat of terror.
But al-Qaeda is itself highly political. It would probably not be in its interest to secure the election of Senator John McCain. Al-Qaeda may be unpredictable, but it would be a mistake for it to interfere in American politics, even if it had the capacity to do so.
OK, *somebody has to say it …
“Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
Mr Rees-Mogg has it figured out! We need not worry about any attacks from al-Qaeda before the U.S. presidential election. They know who they would rather have in the White House – a feckless Democrat – and they don’t want to remind Americans too much about what’s at stake. Hence, they now have a moratorium on major attacks; in effect, interfering by not interfering in American politics.
But come November 12, look out.
Not to mention, Kennedy was a man with the morals of a goat, a poor president who just happened to benefit from a slavishly worshipful press, and got a free pass from posterity by virtue of having been assassinated.
Do I hear Rees-Mogg crossing his fingers behind his back? That’s real hope! Somehow I am not convinced…
By the way, has Obama ever served on a PT boat in action aqainst the Japanese high sea fleet in the South Pacific? If he hasn’t, how does he compare with JFK? Their life experiences are so obviously different.
Golly. What does Obama really know about world affairs, State department diplomacy, the actual threats to the United States and the complexities of the missions assigned to our armed forces?
Why haven’t so many of our politicians served our country in uniform?
More important things to do?
Are our politicians too aristocratic in self-image and temperament to submit themselves to military discipline?
Are they anti-military and thus ‘unsuited’ to serve as commander-in-chief?
AF,
Not having a draft opened opportunities for American males that were not there when the draft was in full swing. Thus an 18 year old could go to college without having to serve in the military. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
but I echo your points of concern. BHO has said a lot about change, but apart from saying healthcare needs to be mandatory for children, and surrendering — I mean, withdrawing — from Iraq he hasn’t said a lot about what he would change or what his plans include.
As I remember it, Kennedy was not nearly as impressive as hindsight has made him. Didn’t Nixon actually win the popular vote? Had his handlers managed his appearance on that debate, Kennedy might have died of old age as a retired senator.
It’s arguable that Obama is a better man than Kennedy, though that’s not mine to judge. Here’s my concern: a campaign commercial is running frequently here in Texas. In that commercial, he makes the case for national health care by stating that his mother died of cancer at age 52, and in the last few months of her life, she was more concerned about paying medical bills than about getting well.
Now, the lady obviously had health care, and IIRC, the family was of a class which suggests she had insurance. One may suppose she knew she wasn’t going to get well and she had the strength of character to concern herself with not leaving a burden of debt to her children. This leaves me with the impression that Senator Obama is willing to manipulate emotions to sell us a program that won’t keep people from having cancer.
As I have stated before in this forum, the poor in my community have health care. In fact, we have a dedicated cancer care facility. People who want more care will, I assume, pay for it, even under Obama’s plan.
If we really want to contain costs, and help people have the resources to pay their bills, medical savings accounts would be a much more useful plan.
Dick Cheney and most neocons didn’t serve in uniform. If Bush had been hammered on it, his comparison to either Kerry or Gore was pretty shallow.
Medical savings accounts might be useful, but when the costs run in the millions, where do we go from there? Just a lot more administration from insurance companies who aren’t interested in paying bills.
Would Republicans would love an attack on the US? That way the populace can run in fear. Fear is a good way to get people to vote conservative. Its outrageous. Especially when tens of thousands are in misery from poor health care.
Medical savings accounts are for routine expenses up to a relatively high stop loss. That’s where insurance is helpful.
#8 you’re saying the other side isn’t using fear of rising medical costs to fuel THEIR campaign? I think someone has their ideological blinders on. Both sides use fear as a tool to further their agendas.
RE: “Medical savings accounts might be useful, but when the costs run in the millions, where do we go from there?”
Uh, the catastrophic-loss health care policy that is coupled with the MSA’s as a matter of form, JW.
Maybe it would help if you would learn a bit about them. Then you could tout your notions of socialism with some knowledge of the opposition.
RE: “Dick Cheney and most neocons didn’t serve in uniform.”
Right — but then they weren’t the ones being compared to John Kennedy either, so what that has to do with much of anything I don’t know.
In 2004, Obama bin Laden released a video right before the election, threatening individual states that voted for Mr Bush. It backfired. This time, he will keep quiet, praying Allah will give him a weak and surrender-prone American President, that he can have his way with.
He would prefer the President be focussed on giving Americans “free” health-care, “free” false teeth, and other blandishments, while al-Qaeda is busily to re-grouping for the long war.
Words Matter,
Not sure about the popular vote thing re: Nixon vs. Kennedy,
however, in terms of appearance vs. words, those who listened to the Nixon/Kennedy debates on radio thought Nixon had clearly won the debate. Those who saw the debate on TV felt Kennedy had won the debate.
In many things, appearance trumps substance, and I think that may be the case with Obama. So far, he has had little of substance to SAY, but my goodness, doesn’t he look good not saying it? 🙄
l-jim –
Well, you inspired me to look, and Kennedy did beat Nixon in the popular vote by about 112,000 votes, which is one of the closest margins in U.S. history (per Wiki), but a couple of sources say that voter fraud occurred sufficient to throw it the other way. It’s interesting. I remember watching the debate on TV (I was VERY young), and remember the grown-ups talking about Nixon looking scuzzy. But my people were all yellow-dog democrats, so there you go. 🙂
The sad part is that McCain is a dreadful orator and old, to boot. So will be get any substantial discussion if the D candidate is Obama?