Obama's Viability
My friend Fish Head pointed out this commentary from noted neocon Charles Krauthammer. Fish Head, who is not Demophobic, happens to agree with Krauthammer that Barack Obama is a likeable but, ultimately, not viable, presidential candidate in 2008. Both Fish Head and Krauthammer cite Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.
I can understand that position (although to hear Krauthammer endorse a presidential run by Obama The Democrat strikes me as terribly, terribly suspect). It's true, Obama does not bring a distinguished military career to the table although he is currently on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He served 7 years in the Illinois legislature and he's been in the Senate for nearly two years.
Fish Head argues that's an awfully skimpy resume for the highest office in the land but - alas - he voted for Bush in 2000 so I'm afraid I must point out that Fish Head does not have a knack for recognizing foreign policy genius (which is not to say I don't still adore Fish Head... I'm just not trusting him with my presidential picks).
Although it's a bit of a gamble to make a comparison with my favorite all time president, Abraham Lincoln, it still must be said that a true statesman is not necessarily forged in the Senate. Abraham Lincoln spent eight years in the Illinois legislature before losing his Senate bid to Stephen Douglas. For the longest time, only Lincoln, his wife, and his closest friends and supporters believed he had the makings of the President of the United States of America. Oh, what a president he turned out to be... and a war time president, at that.
Leaders are born. Statesmen are born. 20 Years in the Senate isn't going to give you those attributes if you don't already have them. What 20 years in the Senate will give you is an unintelligible voting record, a trail of IOUs a mile long, and some rather unattractive bed fellows.
We all say we want more from the Presidency than we've been getting. We want someone who's more than a cardboard cutout of a Presidential image. Someone who respects the trials of ordinary men but is also extraordinary among men. Someone who commands respect without having to insist on it. So what are we doing to achieve that? Are we going to accept the same tired line-up of RNC/DNC approved "experienced" candidates in 2008, each more bought-and-paid-for than the next, or are we going to truly choose our next President?
Obama is rising on his own merit at this point. The DNC/DLC want to exploit his burgeoning popularity but they don't want to let him outshine Hillary. If he's the man I think he is, he'll beat Hillary by good old fashioned popular vote in 2008 and Clinton's DLC won't have a damned thing to say about it.
I'm willing to put some action behind my words on this -- I'm pledging now to be a local volunteer for his campaign if he decides to run.
Obama 2008
I can understand that position (although to hear Krauthammer endorse a presidential run by Obama The Democrat strikes me as terribly, terribly suspect). It's true, Obama does not bring a distinguished military career to the table although he is currently on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He served 7 years in the Illinois legislature and he's been in the Senate for nearly two years.
Fish Head argues that's an awfully skimpy resume for the highest office in the land but - alas - he voted for Bush in 2000 so I'm afraid I must point out that Fish Head does not have a knack for recognizing foreign policy genius (which is not to say I don't still adore Fish Head... I'm just not trusting him with my presidential picks).
Although it's a bit of a gamble to make a comparison with my favorite all time president, Abraham Lincoln, it still must be said that a true statesman is not necessarily forged in the Senate. Abraham Lincoln spent eight years in the Illinois legislature before losing his Senate bid to Stephen Douglas. For the longest time, only Lincoln, his wife, and his closest friends and supporters believed he had the makings of the President of the United States of America. Oh, what a president he turned out to be... and a war time president, at that.
Leaders are born. Statesmen are born. 20 Years in the Senate isn't going to give you those attributes if you don't already have them. What 20 years in the Senate will give you is an unintelligible voting record, a trail of IOUs a mile long, and some rather unattractive bed fellows.
We all say we want more from the Presidency than we've been getting. We want someone who's more than a cardboard cutout of a Presidential image. Someone who respects the trials of ordinary men but is also extraordinary among men. Someone who commands respect without having to insist on it. So what are we doing to achieve that? Are we going to accept the same tired line-up of RNC/DNC approved "experienced" candidates in 2008, each more bought-and-paid-for than the next, or are we going to truly choose our next President?
Obama is rising on his own merit at this point. The DNC/DLC want to exploit his burgeoning popularity but they don't want to let him outshine Hillary. If he's the man I think he is, he'll beat Hillary by good old fashioned popular vote in 2008 and Clinton's DLC won't have a damned thing to say about it.
I'm willing to put some action behind my words on this -- I'm pledging now to be a local volunteer for his campaign if he decides to run.
Obama 2008
posted by Logic101 at 10/30/2006 04:22:00 PM
3 Comments:
Actually what I said was, he has insufficient experience, including a lack of foreign policy experience. He's never managed a large organization, and has no military background. Even Honest Abe had that! All that being said (and despite my shameful vote in 2000) I think he should run. The field is so weak that even if he loses, he'll make a huge difference. And just imagine how much fun it would be to see Colbert ask him, "Bush. Great President or Greatest President?"
I did not disagree with you that his experience is a bit thin (although his resume so far is impeccable).
I am merely suggesting that I've seen what "experience" buys us and I'm unconvinced that we need any more of that.
Lincoln had not managed a large organization and therefore, by your standard, would have been unqualified to be President. Obviously Lincoln was magnificent, hence my belief that every once in a while we are gifted with a leader of extraordinary vision who comes along at just the time we need him.
Whether or not Obama is that man is certainly open to debate. Perhaps voters will decide he's not. Where you and I disagree is that I don't believe a lengthy Senate experience is a requirement for the Presidency.
Furthermore, I'm disgusted that out of a country of 300,000,000 people, we recycle the same dozen candidates through every presidential election cycle. The game is rigged and we're going to have top open ourselves up a little if we're ever going to unrig it.
I should also note the interesting case of Ross Perot, a candidate I actually liked and did not vote for exactly because I did not believe his experience "managing a large organization" would translate well into getting things done in Washington.
A man who spent his whole career (and made his fortune by) giving dictatorial orders to subordinates is one who is not going to have much use for politics which, by definition, is a give-and-take method for getting shit done.
One could argue that that's the kind of guy who could "clean up" Washington but then you'd have that whole constitutional "division of power" scheme getting in the way...
Post a Comment
<< Home