On November 5, we'll know whether young people - who so enthusiastically dug in at the grassroots level and worked the labor-intensive primary caucuses for Barack Obama, catapulting him to political rock-star status (with help from an agenda-driven electronic media) - will turn out on election day.
Such youthful electoral energy and idealism has not been seen since the "Get Clean for Gene" McCarthy campaign in the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic Primary. But will the younger voters be outnumbered by older ones, who traditionally do turn out on election day? Millions of those older voters will not be ready yet to vote for an African-American, but even millions more will not vote for him because they don't know much about him.
Considering the damage that the Bush-Cheney administration has done to this country, the Constitution, the environment, and our image abroad - not to mention the murder of thousands of innocent Iraq citizens - we should be looking at the biggest landslide in US electoral history. Unfortunately, the two major candidates are essentially tied in the national polls.
The sense here is that after the GOP smear machine goes into high gear against Barack Obama (around Labor Day), and plays the race card, overtly (which is why the Republicans have won so many national elections since Nixon's 1968 Southern Strategy), millions of independents will break for McCain in the last two weeks of the campaign instead of gambling on the unknown Obama.
Who knows how many new and younger voters - unfamiliar with how much damage GOP operatives like Karl Rove can do to a Democratic nominee - will be turned off by the whole process and stay home on election day?
So if the unthinkable - a third Bush term, in the form of John McCain - does happen, who is to blame?
A) The electorate, who would rather watch QVC, HGTV, or ESPN instead of C-SPAN; who prefer to read about the history of some Hollywood celebrity rather than US history; who were easily duped by the electronic media into thinking that the best that the Democratic Party could offer was the wife of Bill Clinton and a newly elected African-American senator.
B) The electronic media, who cleverly hijacked the 2008 Democratic nomination by hyping a politically correct feminist and an African-American candidate, rather than the best qualified, most electable candidate, who would have been swept into office on a political tide that would have lifted all boats.
C) The Democratic Party and its National Committee - a party at one time focused on bread-and-butter, pocketbook issues so important to the working and middle classes but now a party perceived as focusing on ethnicity, gender, gay rights, abortion, etc.
D) The excessive arrogance, narcissism, and self-centered agendas of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. If McCain does win, the backlash and acrimony against the Illinois and New York senators (not to mention against the Democratic Party) will be devastating, probably ending both senators' future presidential candidacies. We've had enough of the Clintons and all of their baggage, but the loss of Senator Obama, with his gifted rhetoric, especially to the African-American community, would be enormous. If Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, among others, were at the top of the Democratic ticket, we would already be talking about a historic landslide.
E) Barack Obama's impetuousness. He couldn't wait until he was a nationally known and trusted figure (like Colin Powell, before he made his infamous WMD speech at the United Nations) by accepting a cabinet or other high-profile national position in the next Democratic administration.
Take your pick for who is to blame. Mine is all of the above.
John Griffin is a Rochester-area freelance writer.
Comments for "POLITICS: The presidential race shouldn't be this close" (5)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
Louis Richards said on Aug. 13, 2008 at 11:34am
Considering that 'polls' have been wrong the last 15 out of 19 Presidential Campaigns, it isn't wise to put too much emphasis upon 'polls'. A recent trip to Sarasota County (Florida), which has the 3rd oldest population in America, was quite revealing. I met a number of elder Republicans who were quite vocal in their dismay of what the Republican Party has devolved into. It is clearly no longer the party of Gen. Dwight Eisenhower or Sen. Robert Taft and in retaliation for huge government and soaring deficits these seniors will be supporting Barack Obama (whose first name is Hebrew, by the way, and from the Old Testament). Thus, let us not take for granted that older Americans will automatically vote for McCain.
Of the young people I speak with, many are excited to be new voters and clearly support Obama - though they are unlikely to take the time to answer pollsters unending questions.
Let us also not forget Baby Boomers, to whom a mixed-race individual is nothing out of the ordinary; look at our major sports stars, entertainers and celebrities - not to mention neighbors & co-workers and often family relations.
Remember too, many of us who are newly 'seniors', and especially those of us who are Independents, have been awaiting this revolution for 40 years.
I think you will find a new beginning for America come November 5, 2008 - despite the vagaries of current polls.
McMillan said on Aug. 13, 2008 at 8:52pm
As one of the young people somewhat derided in the above opinion article, I find its author's stance more hazardous than any smear the GOP could conjure. As a member of the nouveau grassroots, I've bore my share of criticism for being too idealistic, hopeful, and inexperienced with the "ways of the world" (much like the popular points of many anti-Obama attacks). But the jaded cynicism present in Mr. Griffin's blame-game is sad. Obama has broken records because he truly inspires a hope for change and a sense of national community and purposeful responsibility. He appeals across social, economic, and racial/ethnic lines because hope for change is kind of universal. And why shouldn't American citizens hold their leaders to ideals, issues, and intangible desires? It worked in the 18th Century. This movement isn't just zipping around cyberspace, it's present in real people and communities, in leaders and in volunteers where you and I live and everywhere else in the country. How can America renew itself when some people are still seeking the "most electable[,] bread-and-butter" candidate for their leader? That kind of approach worked really well in 2004, didn't it? There's never going to be a presidential candidate that is everything to everyone, but I've not a doubt in my mind that Barack Obama will be a leader that brings people of many different stances and backgrounds together. I hope for and will work for a nation that feels the need the work together and get things done. You can write off a huge list of people you don't believe in and dismiss plans you don't think will work, but wouldn't it be more productive to be positive and take action to make a community and an America that you've helped to build?
Dhani Schimizzi said on Aug. 14, 2008 at 12:24pm
I COULDN'T agree more with John Griffin's incisive GUEST COMMENT re: the close presidential race, but my man-on-the-street opinion stands: Obama's ONLY last chance of winning is to choose HILLARY for V.P. Yeah, guys & dolls, she carries "heavy" baggage alright: 15 MILLION votes!
Dhani Schimizzi
Mark McHenry said on Aug. 24, 2008 at 4:35pm
I couldn't DISagree more with Mr. Griffin's liberally slanted rant in City Newspaper last week. I have to admit reading his article on how "The Presidential Race Shouldn't Be This Close" was my first time ever picking up a City Newspaper and likely my last. I must say my first impression of your publication was not very positive. Mr. Griffin's article really struck me as having a strong overtone of contempt and anger towards the Republican party and those who represent it. I'm not sure of where this newspaper's stance is on political issues, but I am inclined to think it's quite a bit left of center. But regardless, one of the things that certainly makes this country of ours great is the God given and Constitutional right to choose who we vote for. Whether I agree with Mr. Griffin's political opinions on the Bush Administration, or who the best 2008 presidential candidate is is irrelevant. But myself and many other fine Americans will fight to the death for Mr. Griffin's right to have that opinion. What troubles me most is Mr. Griffin's obvious bashing of the GOP, John McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton, and his languish praise for Senator Obama. When did it become so hip and trendy to be liberal and spew hate speak towards those on the other side of your views? And why do you think everyone wants to hear you beat your chest about it? Why not just let the political rantings and rhetoric run their course, keep your political views to yourself, and take it to the polls in November? What it all comes down to in the end is not necessarily what ones political opinion are, or how adept one is at bashing the other, it's what happens at the polls in November.
Gene said on Aug. 30, 2008 at 7:53am
What a mistake McCain made in selecting Governor Palin as his running mate. Her in Monroe County we have Maggie Brooks waiting for his VP selection. Not only does she head of a county (population 730,000) that is larger than Alaska (population 680,000), she has been county manager for 6 years while Palin has been governor for less than 2 years. The State of Alaska is also awash with money from their oil resource so Governor Palin does not have to deal with the serious budgetary problem Maggie Brooks has in Monroe County. And she is from New York! So why didn’t McCain pick Maggie over Palin?
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.