Presidential Showdown
In a previous post, I cited Sarah Palin as being the biggest thorn in McCain’s side during the general election. I stick to those guns. Even when some of what was said about the good Governor from Alaska was completely bogus, other things were completely legit. Those were the things causing an implosion within the McCain camp.
But if I had to delve deeper, I’d also say McCain’s loss was just as much of a referendum on George W. Bush as it was on McCain and Palin. Let’s face it: Bush is highly unpopular and poor Senator McCain (tried as he did) could not break away from his association with said unpopular President.
This got me to thinking. By November, 2008, voters were sick of the once effective fearmongering tactics used to keep Bush in office for a second term. Meanwhile, four years ago those same tactics were so successful that they led the country to trust a draft dodger in a post 9/11 world even more than a military veteran. For all the infamy of ”Rovian politics”, one cannot deny its potency.
That said, I’m left to wonder: would Obama’s stellar 2008 campaign been as successful if it was launched in a 2004 America? Even bigger than the eternal debates of Batman vs. Superman, Jordan vs. Bird, or the all important Bernadette Stanis vs. Pam Grier battle, there lies the question of which campaign would’ve fared better in a head-to-head competition. In the red corner, we have Dubya ‘04, his Brain, and American fear. In the blue corner, we have BHO ‘08, his Davids, and American hope.
Who would’ve took home the gold?
- ACL
“would Obama’s stellar 2008 campaign been as successful if it was launched in a 2004 America?”
In a word: no. In the 2004 climate, fear would have taken control over hope in a heartbeat.
I dunno Cynthia. The Davids were far more impressive at running a campaign than Cahill and Jordan were for Kerry. I think Obama could’ve pulled it off. It would have been close, but I think he would’ve beat Bush. Ohio as a controversial state would not have been an issue, as I’m sure Obama would’ve assembled an impressive collection of Chicago lawyers and gone to town.
I think this is a very legitimate question. I never once saw the McCain/Palin ticket as a threat. I saw this thing being over long ago. McCain was essentially left to fend for himself, had nickels and dimes compared to Obama’s millions and had the weight of an unpopular president bearing down on him. In 2004, Bush had no such obstacles. He had money, support, and likability.
If I had to put my money on it, I think Bush would’ve did to Obama what he did to Kerry. And I can’t even stand the guy.
I think that Obama would have crushed G Dubya like the bug that he is. America (particularly Black Americana) was starving for a person of color to take the throne. I think that Obama and his crew would have rallied the people together just as he did this year and wiped the floor with G Dubya.
I agree with Greg, a bit, in that I NEVER saw McCain as a threat. I’ve said before that , IMHO, McLame could have had Colin Powell, Kennedy, or any other likable mate and The O Man would have been victorious just the same. McLame’s enemy and weakest link? Himself! I think that he knew that long before the race was over. In ‘04? BHO!!! Peace.
Very interesting question. You see John Kerry and Barack Obama ran on two quite similar campaign ideas.
John Kerry’s slogan “Help is on the way” tried to send out a message that he could change things and he was going to if he was elected President. But he was stupid and let his floppy self out of the box too many times and he was turned down. Also the economy was soaring, jobs were being created by the millions, and median income was rising increasingly.. All this coupled with the recent successes in the Iraq campaign and also Bush’s “real” attitude. John Kerry was destined for defeat.
Then Barack Obama’s slogans of “Hope” and “Change” also tried to send out a message that things can and will be different. Only this time the economy was skidding to a halt, jobs were being lost and income and wages are and were starting to sink. John McCain just didn’t have the “real” attitude that Bush had so that pushed him even further down.
In my personal opinion, if Obama would have been up against Bush in 2004, Obama would have gotten smashed just as bad as Kerry did, if not more.
Of course I am sure Obama knew this and that is why he, and the Trilateral Commission did not see fit that he run for the office
Right! 2004. I remember those days. The economy was growing at it’s fastest pace in over 20 years, stock market was achieving record highs, earnings were up, investments were up, and American actually SUPPORTED what our president was doing. John Kerry tried to run an anti-war campaign and attack our resolve. He failed. Obama would have been no different.
However………
Bush running against Obama in 2008? No chance. Because Americans have short term memory loss and forget that 93% of us approved of Bush on September 20, 2001 when he said “We shall show no distinction between the terrorists, and the countries who harbor them.” But hey, that was 7 years ago. Who cares, right?