by Frank James
Bill Kristol, the conservative pundit, may have gotten Iraq wrong. But he understands the power of the Obamas' future canine.
When now President-elect Obama said during the presidential campaign that he and wife Michelle promised their two girls a dog if Obama won the presidency, he took part of the American psyche hostage. Voters were going to be responsible for two little girls not getting a dog if they didn't elect Obama.
There had to be a few people out there for whom this was enough, if only subconsciously, to vote for the Democratic ticket. Resistance was futile. How could they deny the girls a dog? It was Machiavellian on Obama's part. Or Barkiavellian.
Anyway, in his column today, Kristol says that though he wasn't feeling great on Election Night he was still all right as he consoled himself with what he saw as a few ground truths:
In other words, this was a good Democratic year, but it is still a center-right country. Conservatives and the Republican Party will have a real chance for a comeback -- unless the skills of the new president turn what was primarily an anti-Bush vote into the basis for a new liberal governing era.
Those were my thoughts when, a few minutes into his victory speech, just after midnight, Obama told his daughters, "And you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the new White House."
I gulped.
Not out of my deep affection for dogs, fond of them though I am. But because while we've all known that Obama is a very skillful politician, he hasn't until now been a particularly empathetic one. Competence plus warmth is a pretty potent combination. Suddenly visions of the two great modern realigning presidents -- Franklin Roosevelt (with his Scottish terrier Fala) and Ronald Reagan (with his Cavalier King Charles spaniel Rex) -- flashed before my eyes. Maybe a realignment could be coming.
Obama was, naturally, asked about the promised-but-not-yet-purchased puppy at his press conference Friday. (If one were being churlish, one might say that it was typical of a liberal to promise the dog before delivering it. A results-oriented conservative would simply have shown up with the puppy without the advance hype.)
Obama commented wryly that the canine question had "generated more interest on our Web site than just about anything." He continued:
"We have two criteria that have to be reconciled. One is that Malia is allergic, so it has to be hypoallergenic. There are a number of breeds that are hypoallergenic. On the other hand, our preference would be to get a shelter dog, but, obviously, a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me. So -- so whether we're going to be able to balance those two things, I think, is a pressing issue on the Obama household."
Here, in a few sentences, Obama did the following: He deepened his bond with every dog lover in America. He identified with every household that's tried to figure out what kind of dog to get. He touched every parent with a kid allergic to pets. He showed compassion by preferring a dog from a shelter. And he demonstrated a dry and slightly politically incorrect wit by commenting that "a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me."
Not bad. It could be a tough four or eight years for conservatives.
Kristol is right to be concerned. Once Obama unleashes the hounds, or in this case a shelter dog, and we see photos of it romping on the White House South Lawn with those cute little girls, it's over for conservatives. Unless they can find their own transformative politician with a cuter dog.
Comments
Kristol...to all surprise, forgot to mention one small fact. The puppies were promised regardless of the outcome. Of course it also comes as no surprise that Obamas' children come high on the list of concerns to him. What comes as a surprise is that family doesn't seem to come as great a concern to the party of "family values".
Posted by: bill r. | November 10, 2008 12:39 PM
Your statement ". . . he . . promised their two girls a dog if Obama won the presidency . . ." is incorrect. The dog was promised whether Sen. Obama won or lost.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/34181374.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUHPYDiaK7DUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU
Posted by: KV | November 10, 2008 1:19 PM
Would some one explain to me how Bill Kristol is still relevant? This is a "pundit" who has been wrong on every major question of the day. It was Kristol who pushed for the Palin appointment as the Republican VP candidate; and we all see how well that worked out for the McCain campaign.
Posted by: notjmariotti | November 10, 2008 1:33 PM
As long as the dog marks W's presidential painting, any dog will do.
Posted by: Redeye | November 10, 2008 1:55 PM
If we are such a "center-right" nation how did Indiana, N. Carolina, Virginia go for the most "liberal" tax-spending senator in the country?
Liberal agenda was resoundingly voted FOR in this election (see local and federal election results).
More Fox news irrelavancy.
Posted by: Gus | November 10, 2008 2:16 PM
The "center-right" argument is ridiculous when you consider the red states that turned blue, and the definition for "right" seems to be getting more narrower every year.
Posted by: Grandblvd03 | November 10, 2008 2:25 PM
In other words, this was a good Democratic year, but it is still a center-right country. Conservatives and the Republican Party will have a real chance for a comeback -- unless the skills of the new president turn what was primarily an anti-Bush vote into the basis for a new liberal governing era. ~ Bill Kristol
-------------------
Don't think so. We Republicans have been driven out of town with pitchforks and sticks. Hard to see any center anything in this. The Left won this thing in a big way. Need to acknowledge this new reality.
We have absolutely no chance in Ma, Ca, Mi, Ny, all New England states, except maybe NH this year or any year into the near future. Taxachusetts / Massachusetts, it's all good. Have No chance in Pa. No one has any residual interest in coal. Should never depend on Oh, Mo, Va and NC. That's a whole lot of electoral votes to have to overcome in order to win a national election. Va, SC, Fl and even Harris County in Tx, said we are working with the great Obama now.
Whether it be energy, taxes, national security, anti-capitalist environmentalism, this country has voted and by a substantial majority has accepted the arguments of the Left. Republicans NEVER read the tea leaves very well, but WE R N A Whole Heap Of Trouble. This is a "new liberal govrening era." Save yourself, if you can. This is about all that you can do.
Posted by: Django - N Exile somewhere in/around the 30th Parallel | November 10, 2008 2:55 PM
Django, take a deep breath and relax. You Republicans will always have Texas - except for Austin.
Posted by: BC | November 10, 2008 3:51 PM
If Kristol says something, there's a good chance that the opposite is true. He DOESN'T have a real good track record as "pulse on the nation" predictions go. Personally, I'd agree that the country is pretty much centrist, but I'm not sure whether it's centrist-right or centrist-left. My inclination to think it's centrist-left is only because it mirrors my own leaning.
Posted by: Op109 | November 10, 2008 4:40 PM
Kristol says: "...this was a good Democratic year, but it is still a center-right country." Notice how this has overnight become the universal talking point for every Republican. They all got the same memo from Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Only problem is...they're lying again. The Democrats ARE the center now...and America is now a center- to center-left country that believes We the People should be in charge of our government. The Republicans are delusional and STILL don't get it.
Posted by: wilder5121 | November 10, 2008 5:16 PM
Malia didn't bargain well enough. The dog will be LONELY.
Posted by: The girls need TWO DOGS (and maybe a cat too) | November 10, 2008 8:42 PM
Django,
Thank your own party for the current state of affairs.
Worst Administration Ever. Period.
Posted by: Bubba | November 10, 2008 9:56 PM