GET POLITICAL with VIC LIVINGSTON (Opinion): Time Again for the Supers to Be Thinking about Hillary?

• Obama's hubris,  issue nuances and new polling
   could lead Dem superdelegates to reconsider support

• Too soon for Barack to be acting like President-Elect?

A new Washington Post/Wall Street Journal poll focuses on the other race for the White House -- the contest to become the nation's First Lady.  While it's true that a vote for a presidential candidate is not necessarily reflective of the voter's opinion of his spouse, it's a leading indicator nonetheless.  And the poll does not seem to auger well for Barack Obama.

Among those polled in four key states who had an opinion on the subject, Cindy McCain's "favorables" outstripped Michelle Obama by about a 3-to-1 margin -- this, despite Cindy's past problems with prescription drug addiction, and charges stemming from the theft of medications from a charity sponsored by her foundation.  The poll didn't specifically ask about voter reaction to the recent cartoon cover of the New Yorker magazine depicting Michelle, a Yale law graduate with no record of drug use, as a fist-bumping black militant, and her husband as a turban-clad Muslim. The drawing was intended to satirize the bigoted views of the extreme right; but many, including Obama himself, took offense.

Could racism explain the disparate approval ratings of Cindy and Michelle?  It's a premise that cannot be ignored. Virulent racism remains a great stain on the Republic.  The poll seems to portend that Cindy McCain's foibles and shortcomings will be excused in voter evaluation of her suitability to become First Lady, while Michelle Obama's race will not. Those who would diss Michelle while refusing to disapprove of Cindy's past probably would not vote for Obama in any event; but it's an indication of how racial perceptions may color the final vote count.

To conclude that the vote for president will be decided solely on racial grounds would be to insult the character and intelligence of the American electorate -- how else to explain Obama's presumptive nomination as the Democratic candidate?  But the First Lady polling once again demonstrates the pervasive role that race and racial stereotypes still plays in our supposedly enlightened society. 

That is why some political observers believe that to win, Obama must follow in the measured footsteps of another African-American pioneer, Jackie Robinson: to succeed, project a perfect balance of talent, determination, humility and pride.

No one questions Obama's talent, determination and self-confidence; where he falls short of the ideal is in the humility department.  The obvious, some would say overdone, stagecraft involved in his foreign tour is but the latest example of a campaign that too often has taken on the imperial airs of a cult of personality.  It too closely follows a disturbing narrative that Obama cannot seem to shake: the notion that he's arrogant, effete and presumptuous to a fault -- especially for a candidate with only three years' experience on the national scene.

In this upcoming election, experience still matters -- despite the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton's failure to secure the nomination in the primaries indicates otherwise.  It is still likely that this election ultimately will turn on the experience question:

Which candidate has the experience, values, and judgment to become the next president?

Neither candidate scores particularly well among those criteria. McCain's increasingly apparent memory problems and his verbal gaffes have raised new concerns about his age and agility. But McCain's many years in Congress and the automatic respect he engenders as a former P.O.W. probably give him the edge with typical (read: white suburban/rural) voters.

And, of course, McCain gets the racist vote by simply showing up.

If "judgment to lead," as Obama's slogan puts it, trumps experience among the electorate's major criteria for choosing the next president, it still will be close. If voters prefer the"safe" candidate, they probably will go for McCain -- unless Obama brings along an experienced, well-known and respected vice presidential candidate who would serve in the role as trusted advisor and mentor.

If Obama seals the nomination, the only candidate on the horizon that fits that bill is Chris Dodd. The animus among Obama, Hillary and Bill would seem to render Hillary an unwise v.p. choice.

But Hillary would be my pick as the Democratic presidential nominee most likely to defeat McCain -- a belief cemented recently by Obama's retreat from core principles: his acquiescence to the FISA wiretapping/telecom immunity bill, the Supreme Court decision barring handgun regulation in D.C., and the court's expansion of application of the death penalty. Throw in his pandering on church-state issues and some recent nuances on the Mideast, and he becomes even less convincing as the candidate of "change."

If the GOP is able to paint Obama's foreign jaunt as a presumptuous and self-absorbed excerise in hubris as opposed to a true fact-finding mission, Democratic superdelegates may be left to wonder: Are we really going into the general with our strongest candidate?

A disavowal of their endorsement of Obama by black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Bob Johnson of BET could presage an announcement by Hillary Clinton that she, too, is withdrawing her endorsement of Obama, and has decided to challenge him at the convention for the nomination.

This is the secret, unspoken hope of millions of frustrated and concerned Democrats.

These skeptical Hillaryites -- some may view them as less cynical than realistic -- do not dislike Obama. But they believe that his persist demonstrations of hubris and elitism; his vacillation on some key issues; the disillusionment among some core supporters; all that, coupled with manifestations of endemic racism among segments of the electorate, could thwart his "improbable journey" to the White House. 

And such skepticism over Obama's chances comes in a year that by all measures should favor the Democrats, given the sagging economy and dissatisfaction with the current Republican administration.

This is the uncomfortable realpolitik that starry-eyed pundits choose to ignore.

The question is: Is it a question that the superdelegates can afford to ignore?

IF YOU VALUE THE RULE OF LAW AND THE
RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS, PLEASE CLICK HERE:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vigilante-injustice-organized-gang-stalking-american-
gestapo-are-they-doing-hi-tech-torture?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-
victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa-1