Hitchens: 'Gutless' Obama 'A Dusky Dukakis'?

Christopher Hitchens at Slate, a columnist for Vanity Fair, is a big-time Obama supporter in the media, but he asks some questions about the Obamessiah that sound worse than anything said about him by either McCain or Palin.

Why is Obama so vapid and hesitant and gutless? Why, to put it another way, does he risk going into political history as a dusky Dukakis?

Hitchens tries to explain his Michael Dukakis comparison (loser to Bush the 1st) by replaying Bill Clinton's confusion shortly after his unexpected victory over Bush the 1st. Big Bill admitted he felt like the dog who was chasing the car and finally caught it. "What do I do now?" he asked.

(Obama) was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008, and then the enthusiasm of his supporters (and the weird coincidence of a strong John Edwards showing in Iowa) put him at the front of the pack. Yet, having suddenly got the leadership position, he hadn't the faintest idea what to do with it or what to do about it.

Look at the record, and at Obama's replies to essential and pressing questions. The surge in Iraq? I'll answer that only if you insist. The credit crunch? Please may I be photographed with Bill Clinton's economic team? Georgia? After you, please, Sen. McCain.

Like John McCain has been saying "Not ready to lead." As the old saying goes, with friends like Hitchens, Obama doesn't need any enemies.

But Hitchens makes it clear his criticism of Obama is intended to make him go on the attack because he fears McCain and Palin are winning.

(Obama) is too nice, too innocent, too honest, and too decent to get down in the arena and trade bloody thrusts with the right-wing enemy.

I have no idea what planet Hitchens lives on, but it's not Earth. Calling McCain a "stinking old, dead fish" and Palin a "pig with lipstick" is not "nice, innocent, honest and decent" on this planet. How much nastier does Hitchens want Obama to be with "the right-wing enemy"? Hitchens lives in that alternate universe where McCain's campaign is all nasty lies and the Obamessiah's words and deeds are all sweetness and light.

Hitchens is right that Obama would rather leave the really dirty work to his Astroturfing sock puppets from Kos, Moveon, Code Pink and other assorted leftwing nutroots, not to mention the mainstream media. But lately Obama's sending them signals they aren't being nasty enough.

Wesley Pruden at The Washington Times comments:

Obama told a rally in Las Vegas that his supporters have to "get in the faces of Republicans," presumably to say and do things "the transcendent One" never would.

Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades answers Hitchens' questions about Obama with blunt honesty. It's so sharp, I stole Malor's entire post.

Obama acts like an aimless twit because that's what he is. There is no "deeper Barack." Sure, he does fine on the topics he's rehearsed a hundred times (race, healthcare, race, anti-Bush, race, Iraq, oh and race), but give him something new to to think about and he defaults: "Present."

That's what happened with Georgia. He gives a statement that he probably read on a bumper sticker: "War is bad for humans and other living things." Then revises it after his advisers have a chance to write up a few position papers (cribbing from McCain) and run a few polls.

That's what happened this past weekend with the financial bailouts. First he sounded like a fourth grader aping a tour guide on Capitol Hill: "Congress has an important role to play." Then, after declaring that now is not the time for specific details to fix the problem he was mocked on Leno. And today he has his advisers have a six point plan.

If he seems gutless, it's because he's used to going whichever way the wind is blowing. As he wrote in his book, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Sometimes it takes him a few tries to figure out just what message his minders are projecting onto him. And, of course, without these people he has nothing to say at all.

He seems vapid and hesitant because he's never really sure if the answer he's giving is the right one. He's worried that his minders are going to have to turn him around so he can explain away any "inartful" statements. Think of it like this: every time Obama says "uh" on camera, what he's really doing is flinching from the possibility that his campaign manager, David Plouffe, is going to whack him on the nose with a newspaper. Again. Hence the stutter.

Hitch writes that he's getting the feeling that Obama is a little scared of winning this contest. And why wouldn't he be? After two years of dancing to his minders' tune, being reduced to a mouthpiece for smarter, more experienced and more ambitious men and women, he can look forward to at least four more! This is an understandable fear.

But Obama's also feeling what a child feels after he has climbed into Daddy's truck and turned it on, believing that he's seen Daddy do it so many times that he can do it too. The Obama campaign truly has been the campaign of hope: as in, "I hope I can do this." Things are rolling now, but it's just starting to dawn on him that maybe he doesn't know as well as he thought how to control this thing. He's more likely to come to a screeching, crunching, grinding stop than to make a graceful finish.

Abe Greenwald at Contentions also noted Hitchens' lament about Obama's "vapid and hesitant and gutless" stands on issues and ran with it.

Nice job, but it’s only a start! Let’s expand:

Does present-day Zionism have justice on its side? Let me tell you about my sixth grade camp counselor. How do you intend to apply pressure on Iran? By tightening the screws or employing a similarly useless cliché . When does life begin? Sorry, above my pay grade. NAFTA? Are you asking me or my advisor? Troop withdrawal? Immediately! Or whenever . . .

Forget the fact that Obama has no paper trail. There’s scarcely a record of his convictions–period. It could be that this, in some way, resonates with an electorate that itself has been sitting on the fence on crucial issues for years. They want to stop supporting dictators, but avoid the messy work of building democracies. They want to win in Iraq, but they want to end the war. They want smaller government, but everyone should have healthcare. They want to save Darfur, but wait for the UN. They want to drill offshore, but scold about it being a temporary fix. They want loans they can’t pay back, but want to punish the lenders. Obama lets his supporters indulge their passions without ever having to act upon them. Choose Obama and you never have to choose again. That’s a very appealing (and very dangerous) delusion.

Meanwhile, back on the "friends of Obama" side, guess who else took a turn in the fun game of "Whack Obama!"? Wait for it ... Joe Biden!

Obama's running mate shifted into reverse as he said yesterday that Obama's "McCain can't use a computer" ad was really ... "terrible!"

I think Obama needs to explain to Biden again how his VP's role as "attack dog" does not include biting the boss in the rear.