Primary season revealed true colors...

During World War II the adage “loose lips sink ships” was coined as a public service announcement to warn the public against inadvertently giving military information that could fall into the hands of enemy spies.

In the world of modern presidential primaries the same adage is appropriate when candidates who supposedly share core ideals rip each other to shreds, potentially sinking the general election in the process.

For example, the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater is often given credit for devising the Willie Horton ad in 1988. In it, Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was criticized for supporting a furlough program tha allowed Horton, who was already serving a life sentence, a weekend pass in the name of rehabilitation. Horton never returned, and later burglarized a Maryland home in which he severely beat one man and brutally raped his girlfriends. The ad was designed to suggest that Dukakis was weak on crime, but Atwater was harshly criticized by civil rights groups that accused him of “race baiting.”

The truth is that the first person to question Dukakis about the furlough program was then Tennessee Senator Al Gore, Dukakis’ rival for the Democratic nomination. The question is whether Atwater et al. would have been able to use Horton had Dukakis’ Democratic opponent not hammered him on it first?

In the 2008 campaign, as Senator Hillary Clinton’s ship took on more water, her senior advisers devised a strategy to discredit Obama at any and all costs. A recent article in The Atlantic magazine shows just how desperate the Clinton campaign was in its efforts to obtain the nomination, so much so that veteran Mark Penn, in a series of emails, even suggested that the campaign raise questions about Obama being “different” in a series of emails that all but suggested that the race should focus on character attacks more than issues.

Clintons’ “3 am ads”, where she questioned who would be the best to answer the “red phone” during a crisis, is arguably the precursor to an ad unveiled this past weekend where Republicans use her own words to question whether Obama has the experience to lead. The ad focuses on Clinton’s earlier remarks that “Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002.”

Harsh words indeed. What makes them harsher is that for all of his talent and eloquence, Obama is inexperienced in foreign affairs. With the recent Russian invasion of Georgia, some electoral fence sitters may be more willing to cast their lots with a former military man as opposed to a first term senator.

The trouble with this logic is that it is merely an example of perception over reality. The truth is that neither Obama nor McCain have served as president and will undergo “on the job training” if elected. The key is for the eventual president to surround himself with the best foreign policy advisers to help determine the appropriate courses of action.


As such, the experience question should be posed in terms of which man will select wise counsel? At this juncture, Obama should give a glimpse into the types of men and women that he would tap for his administration. He could certainly score points by reaching across party lines by dropping names like Colin Powell and David Gergen, suggesting in the process that he would be prepared to face crises with individuals who have faced them before.

More on the Vice Presidency...

As I previously mentioned in this Blog, I like the selection of Joseph Biden. I have learned more about him this weekend then ever before, including how he dealt with the tragedy of his first wife’s untimely death while continuing to work hard in the Senate. Interestingly, he never used this as a sympathy card to score points during the primary.

Biden also has a well earned reputation as an extremely knowledgeable and prepared debater, a factor that should help him in the VP debate against his Republican rival.

It is obvious, however, that Biden’s selection shows that Obama is concerned about his own lack of foreign policy experience. Biden, similar to former presidential rivals Christopher Dodd and Bill Richardson, the former United Nations ambassador, all proved to be the most knowledgeable Democrats with respect to foreign policy during the primaries. Again, Obama would be wise to drop their names, too, as potential cabinet members in his administration.

The concern for many, however, is whether these men will get a chance to serve in an Obama administration? I am no math expert but I’m bright enough to know that if nearly 47 % of Hillary Clinton’s followers have yet to support Obama nearly three months after the end of the primaries, then that is certainly a sign of danger.

While Clinton arrived in Denver today preaching unity, the truth is that she is only human and the disappointment of losing a vigorously fought campaign has left her somewhat on the sidelines over the past eight weeks. Clinton has said all of the right words, but her passion, to date, has been sorely lacking.

Which leads to my concern that even now, it may be too late to inspire her most ardent female supporters who believe that her slight proves the existence of a political glass ceiling for women.

While perusing a chat room of my fraternity (Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Incorporated) this weekend, several of my brothers made the interesting point that Obama’s decision to select Biden was no affront to Clinton because she had done nothing to earn the slot since conceding the nomination (if we can consider that to have been a concession speech at all.)

As I pondered that thought, I quickly realized its truth because any person that is serious about joining with a former foe must conduct themselves in a manner that says “pick me.” Want proof? Look no further that Mitt Romney, who excoriated John McCain’s lack of conservative credentials throughout the Republican primaries, but has extended an olive branch since then---raising millions of dollars while extolling the need for party unity in the process. With the GOP’s penchant for primogeniture, Romney, if selected as VP, certainly has placed himself in great position to be the next Republican standard bearer should McCain lose.

The Democratic rift is so great that McCain supporters smell blood in the water. Carly Firorina, a prominent McCain strategist, is in Denver this week making her rounds among the pundits and exclaiming at each stop that the Democratic Party is “divided.” Firorina could be right, as the Democrats appear to be similar to a dysfunctional family pretending to like each other during a photo shoot, all the while counting the minutes that they can get from each other’s presence.

At the conclusion of last nights coverage, Mark Halperin of Time magazine noted on the Charlie Rose show that there was a serious lack of emotion during yesterday’s events. He suggested that the cause was nothing less than the fact that nearly half of the delegates involved are Clinton supporters who were neither moved nor impressed with last night’s offerings. Chris Matthews and others also noted the rift, but they mostly tried to downplay it by saying that the Clinton/Obama dissonance is mild compared to the Carter Kennedy debacle in 1980. Matthews, a former Carter speech writer, went so far as to say that he held personal grudges for years against many of the Kennedy operatives. The problem for Democrats is that Carter/Kennedy ended in a Reagan victory that November.

The Clinton’s are clearly to blame for what is fast turning into a Frankenstein’s monster for the Democratic Party. Senator Clinton has done little to disassociate herself from her incendiary rhetoric during the primaries. The former president, too, is no longer welcome in many of the Black neighborhoods and churches that once loved him because of his slights of Obama. All eyes will be on them both this week, but particularly Senator Clinton, who has a great opportunity to make amends. Should she fail, and should her primetime speech be similar to her “concession” speech where her main topics were “I”, “me” and “we” (meaning Bill---not the party), then Obama will certainly have a difficult time this November.

Further, it strikes me as odd that Clinton supporters would even dare try to sabotage the Obama election in hopes that Clinton will be the nominee in ’12. “Hell hath no fury” like a demographic group scorned. I can assure you that should Obama lose because Clinton supporters stay home or support McCain, she can give up her White House dreams because blacks, who continue to comprise the largest and most loyal Democratic voting bloc, will never forgive her or them for failing to rally around Obama.

Michelle Obama’s turn at the plate...

Michelle Obama has come under intense scrutiny this year for her comments that were interpreted to be anti-American. While we have had a chance to catch glimpses of her speaking ability here and there, she certainly stepped to the plate and delivered a home run last night.

Mrs. Obama was able to put to rest the notion of the Obama’s being “exotic.” It amazes me how nearly forty years after the Civil Rights Movement there are still some stubborn souls, even within the media, who refuse to acknowledge that the separation between the races was an artificial and arbitrary construct from the beginning of our nation. The majority of blacks and whites share a lot in common, from religion to language to customs—and yet half of this past year has been spent with media types suggesting that Americans “don’t know” the Obama’s. Sure they do. They are hard working Christians and doting parents who remain hopeful that this country, which Mrs. Obama opined “is already great”, can get even better. That, in a nutshell, is the very essence of being an American.

Join BBN for free to post a comment on this page.
If you already have an account, please login here to post a comment on this page.