The Main Reasons Why Barack Obama May Lose the Elections

The wonder of the 2008 presidential contest between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain is that it is still a contest at all. Of course, we may tote the tired line that polls prior to the political parties' conventions mean little or nothing. But one can't help but wonder why this race is a contest at all.

You can bet your horse, if you have one, Democrats are very nervous already. Some party leaders are still questioning Barack's judgment. "Why didn't Obama put Hillary on the ticket as his VP, if winning the presidency was his number objective? How will Joe Biden help him win those angry Hillary supporters, not to mention those battleground states?"

Here is why John McCain should be trailing Barack Obama by at least 10 percentage points at this point in the game:

1. Economic Recession: The economy is in the tank, with failing banks, high gasoline price, rising food price, and floods of foreclosures as the housing sector swims in the sewer of recession.

2. Unpopular President: For months now, President George Bush's job approval rating has been in the 20s and low 30s. As of August 24, a CNN poll showed the president with a 30 percent approval by Americans.

3. McCain Attachment to the Bush Agenda: If you can believe some of the reports and talking points, Senator John McCain has voted with Mr. Bush about 90 to 95 percent of the time. That means, there is no way McCain can be regarded by American voters as a change agent, since he may be able to only deliver a 10 percent change different from the Bush agenda.

In spite of all these factors favorable to a Democratic landslide in November, Barack Obama is in a dead heat with Senator McCain. If this trend continues – Barack losing his lead over McCain, then tied with McCain, and now trailing McCain in the latest Gallup poll – the Democrats may actually see another Republican in the White House, to continue what Democrats like to call "a third Bush term".

What is going on? Political pundits are awash with theories as to the reason for the close contest between Obama and McCain. Here is my best bag of speculation.

One reason is that domestic issues have been truncated by international concerns. The leading culprit is Russia's invasion of Georgia. To make matters worse, Russia is on track to annex parts of Georgia. Such a turn of affairs usually favors the Republican hawkish tendency. It may actually be Vladimir Putin of Russia who who defeats Barack Obama on November 4^th. What does not seem to make sense about America's preference for McCain in dealing with the Russian-Georgian crisis, though, is that Russia has boldly marched into Georgia under the very nose of a Republican president, despite President Bush's warnings, rebukes and threats aimed at Russia. What is a President McCain going to do to the Russians that President Bush has not been able to do – start bombing Moscow?

Another reason: The harsh attacks on Barack Obama by fellow Democrats during the primary season have come home to roost. Those relentless attacks have taken their toll on the political junkie, and they may yet do further damage. The McCain campaign has seized the audios and videos of the repeated pounding against Obama of "lack of experience" and "not ready to lead" by Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries. McCain does not even need to use his own words, except to say, "I am John McCain, and I approve this message", every time they play the words of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden (now Obama's VP), slamming Barack for his perceived inexperience.

A third reason: Clever underhand maneuvers by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party are starting to undermine Obama's chances of winning this race. As some of us have maintained for months now, it does not serve Hillary's presidential aspirations for Obama to be elected President of the United States. If Barack wins, Mrs. Clinton may have to wait for 8 years before she can make a second run for the White House. But if McCain wins, she can run again as early as 2012.

Fourth reason: Hillary Clinton supporters have now gone beyond partisan politics to religious zeal and devotion to their defeated candidate, whom they now treat as a feminist deity, a goddess, whose worship deserves any level of sacrifice they can make, even if it means the forfeiture of the presidency by the Democrats in 2008. There is hardly anything Mrs. Clinton can say to dissuade these ardent worshipers, not to mention that, to these disciples, Clinton's hidden actions and visible body language speak much louder than any clarion call she may send forth for her followers to vote Obama for president. Besides, the Clintonites will love nothing less than to suck it to the likes of Michelle Obama, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi, and the entire Barack wing of the Democratic Party. Barack's loss will amount to the biggest "We told you so" from the Clinton establishment.

Sixth reason: The Rev. Jeremiah Wright hangover has helped to create or confirm doubts about a black man that may be too liberal for America. Though from everything the nation has observed so far, Barack does not seem to share Rev. Wright's militant spirit, a good number of white voters may harbor sufficient doubts to tilt the elections in McCain's favor. At present it seems the only black man some white voters can accept is someone like General Collin Powell, who has an approval rating in the 70s.

True, there is enough time for things to change, but right now, one cannot but ask, "Is there still hope for Barack Obama to win on November 4^th?"

If there is such a hope, it may come from two sources. One is Obama's own "audacity" to hope against hope. Boy, does he need that "audacity of hope" right now?!

The other source of hope is something that some die-hard Obamaians have floated. They suggest that the traditional polls being taken by CNN, Gallup, and other pollsters are missing an important demographic ~ the cellphone generation of young (college) voters, who proved to be firebrands for the Obama movement during the primary elections. Those who hold this view say that traditional pollsters normally call landlines, not cellphone numbers, to poll voters. Mr. Obama can only hope that there is some truth to that rumor, which may serve as his trump card come elections day. We shall see.

Note: Your comments to this article are more than appreciated.

What? Another Barack Obama Re-Introduction?

Last night (August 20, 2008), I turned on cable television, and there on CNN Presents was the latest biography on Mr. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic Party nominee for president of the United States. Perhaps CNN produced this show to counteract that slanderous book Obama Nation.

Frankly, I learned not much new about Mr. Obama. There is very little left to be learned about the man. Barack (Barry) was born to a black (Kenyan) father and white mother. His father abandoned him; his dad, born 1936, died 1982 in Kenya. Barack married Michelle Robinson in October 1992. His mom died in 1995.

Can we move on now, please? How many times will Barack Obama have to introduce himself or have CNN or any other entity introduce the man to America? Was he a naturalized citizen or something? Really, why does the man need to be introduced and re-introduced to his own country over and over? Barack has been on the national stage for months now. By now anyone interested in learning more about him should have checked Wikipedia or some other independent source on the candidate.

All this pretend curiosity about getting to know the real Barack Obama is getting kind of old. And it is getting some of us to ask, “If this guy were a white presidential candidate, named William Baron, would we still be wanting to know 'The Real William Baron', or would we rather be more concerned about William Baron's ideas?”

This is insane, and I'm about to lose more of my already vanishing hair strings. Look, people, the only important questions to ask of any presidential candidate of these united states should be those contained in the Constitution of our country. Perhaps a little civics review will do the trick:

1. First important question: Does the candidate satisfy the age and citizenship requirements as stated in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution? The founding document reads, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

2. Second important question: Does the candidate meet what may be called the no-dynasty, no-ruling family requirement? The term limit amendment ratified February 27, 1951, reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

The person does not have to be a certain height. Does not need to have been in Washington for decades; two to three years in the legislature plus numerous appearances on the national stage is plenty of time to know someone who wants to be president. Besides, the media, especially in the Internet Age, littered with blogs, will definitely leave no stone unturned in the effort to reveal, uncover or expose any politician aiming for Pennsylvania Avenue.

No, the candidate does not have to be a certain gender. Does not have to be married. Does not have to have children. Does not have to graduate from a certain school. Does not have to be a Jew, Christian, or Muslim. Does not have to be Evangelical, Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, or Charismatic. Does not have to be a governor, representative or senator. And no, the candidate for the oval office does not have to own a dog or cat, or have his last name be Kennedy, Bush or Clinton. His/her name does not even have to be or sound American.

I thought the United Sates were the great, big cultural melting pot of the world. Has that changed all of a sudden, because a guy's name is or sounds Eastern? What am I missing here?

Yes, the presidential candidate must have character or integrity, as defined and accepted by American society. But if the person lacks moral integrity, the electorate will filter him/her out with their votes.

On August 25^th the convention for the Democratic Party kicks off, to be followed on September by the Republican Party convention on . May America be treated as an adult, not expecting or waiting for an encore introduction of Obama or McCain. May we see and hear a serious presentation of the big issues this election should be about from now until November 4^th.

“What are those issues?” one may ask. Those issues are not McCain's war record or prisoner of war accolade. Not Barack's last name or middle name; not his pastor or any other associates of decades past. Personality will not win or lose this election. What we want to hear are the candidates' ideas and plans concerning national security, energy, health care, taxes, judges, abortion, and the international scene.

How will either man deal with each of the following? The recessive economy; America's bankrupt social security scheme; the costly war in Iraq, costing the American taxpayer $10 billion per month; angry Russia, now occupying the sovereign nation of Georgia; ambitious Iran, with its unpredictable ruler; illusive Afghanistan, where the Taliban resurges; the explosive dilemma that is the Israeli and Palestinian question; the rising super power that is China; nuclear Pakistan, with increasingly bold and blatant suicide bombers; Darfur, the humanitarian disaster of Sudan; the AIDS epidemic.