Even if the title of this post were true, is that such a bad thing?
Some folks whose opinions I generally value mentioned they were a little leery of Barack Obama because he, their words, not mine, “came out of nowhere.” Another person, whom I don’t know as well, but generally have pretty good regard for, added that Glenn Beck had been running commercials calling Obama the anti-Christ for this very reason. As though Obama’s amazingly rapid rise could only be the result of some supernatural intervention.
Since I’m still, perhaps naively, excited about the prospect of a President Obama, this concerned me. These folks, while perhaps a little more educated than the general population, are as Joe-beercan as the people I know get. I thought about their words the whole way home from National Guard duty last weekend.
I put it out of my mind for a while, but the other afternoon, while waiting for my daughter to find out that she needs new glasses (along with orthodonture and a new wardrobe, especially shoes) I ran across an article in TIME comparing the experience of the top three candidates - McCain, Clinton and Obama. I wasn’t surprised to learn that Hillary and Barack are actually pretty close in actual experience. Granted, Hillary was first lady for 8 years, but as Chris Rock says, “My wife’s been married to me for as long as I’ve been a comedian, but she’s never been on stage. She’s not funny.” (or something like that) Take away those eight years in the White House, and they're actually pretty close.
So when it comes to actual experience, though some of Obama’s was only at the state level, he may not be fully loaded, but he definitely didn't come from nowhere. I guess what strikes me most about learning this, rather than just having a vague idea about it, is that his political experience places him well ahead of our current president. Let alone the successful business ventures Obama has been a part of, just one of which places him well ahead of our current president, but hey, it's too late to worry about that, and as I've made obnoxiously clear, I didn't vote for the guy. Back to Obama... if elected in 2008, he'd be the 19th (out of 43) most experienced president we've elected, according to an article in THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES.
To complicate the issue even more, the TIME article covered the idea that experience isn’t a magic bullet. Kennedy, Lincoln and both Roosevelts had relatively limited political experience. Kennedy even cited his lack of it in his confession of mishandling the Bay of Pigs invasion. Yet each of these candidates was fairly well received and remembered. Along the same confusing lines, each of them faced situations for which no amount of experience could have prepared them.
On the other hand, many of our worst presidents, Nixon, Ohio's own Warren Harding (who even admits he was a bad president) had tons of experience, which, in each of their cases, turned out to be called patronage from another perspective. Add the current discussions about super delegates whose job it was, at one point at least, to prevent such patronage-styled ascendancies, and you’ve got a million questions to answer before you can cast a semi-intelligent vote. Good luck with that!
It's sad for me now that the Republican party has capitulated to its weak slate. For a while there, I was really thinking that for the first time in my voting life, a Romney vs. Obama ticket would actually provide two good choices rather than the lesser of two evils. Yes, I joked about Ron Paul, and seriously like some of his ideas, but he's crazy. Although, I have to admit, I'd probably go ahead and toss my vote their way if he teamed up with Ralph Nader!
As far as the Dems go, I concede that Hillary seems to be a very capable politician with whom I agree on several of the bigger issues, but my decision was made a while back when Romney and Obama emerged as the only contenders who did NOT cast a vote in favor of the war in Iraq. Granted, Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, didn't get the chance to do so, but that was good enough for me at that point. Still is. And that's the issue that pushes Obama far ahead of Hillary for me.
I admire John McCain. He's one of few senators who has routinely put partisanship aside and hammered out compromises and solved tough fights in the senate. I appreciate his service to the country as a service member and as a senator, but his war vote and his strange support of the president who conned us into it are the deal breaker there. I just can't figure him out and I'm not willing to gamble given the recent past.
Obama, on the other hand, may have limited political experience, but that's one of his most endearing qualities given the past 25 years worth of presidents. I like the guy like I like what I've learned about Bobby Kennedy. He's an idealist with the charisma to get things done. Some of those same people mentioned at the start of this post fear that people like their backwoods friends might shoot Obama because of the color of his skin were he elected, and we'd have to start over again, but I'm going to give today's secret service more credit than that. Granted, it's hard to stop a mad man even if the madness stems from psychotic ignorance, but I think we're a little better at those kinds of things these days... and I think, again, perhaps naively, that those secret societies who may have perpetrated such an attempt in the past have suffered a bit of a brain drain over the years. I'll put my money on the secret service getting better enough to take them.
Anyhoo, let's all put our collective brain power into staying out of Iran now that Bush has driven out William Fallon... yet another respected-across-the-board expert (who fought against invading Iran) to leave this highly praised administration.
Oh, and at some point, we've got to continue to discuss mankind's developments on the religious front. I'll leave you with this unoriginal thought:
The Greeks and Romans marked a great leap forward in reason when they reduced the number of gods they worshipped from many to one. We're poised to leave as our legacy the final chapter in the age of reason by continuing that trend if only we can reduce the number one more time!
Luth
Out
6 comments:
I hear ya, Luth. In the aftermath of the Bush administration, I have no desire to hear more lying. I, for one, have no sepia-toned memories of Clinton presidencies #1 and #2. I thought they were sell-outs then, and I see no difference now. This is the beauty of being much further left than most of the democratic party...I always saw Clinton as watered-down republican in terms of his policy stances.
Please, make the lying stop.
You two guys should love Obama. Actually Luth, I do agree with much of what you said... at least until the very end of your post. But, that should be no surprise.
Obama seems to have the charisma to be a leader, and I agree, that may be far more important than experience. The concern is whether or not his charisma will lead us down the wrong path. When it comes to Senate voting, Obama and Hillary are very close positionally, but supposedly Obama is a little further to the left of Hillary.
The next president must gain the trust of not just Americans, but also the world. A good NYT articles questions whether he truly can gain trust with his far left positions.
But then McCain hasn't done much to gain wide ranging support over the past few years.
I was hoping for a good, honest middle of the road candidate that could draw support from both sides of the aisle. McCain is the closest to that position, but he has burned a few bridges. I agree basically with Bill's assessment of Hillary above. Obama may be too far to the left to appeal to anyone except college professors and skeptical National Guardsmen.
Oh, one comment concerning your position on religion. Many have tried to wipe out religion down through the centuries, including the Romans. They liked to feed Christians to the lions for sport. But, no one has succeeded. Right now China is probably the one place where there is the most official resistance to religion, to the point of extreme restrictive measures, yet, that is one area where Christianity is thriving more than even in America. Same with the former Soviet Union. Any attempts to wipe out Christianity have typically resulted in strengthing the faith.
Hey Bill, Hey Ray.
It's interesting to read your comments without the dimension of time being a real factor. I know they're time-stamped when you post them, but I finally get around to reading them, they're both right there. The time stamps don't really have much affect at that point.
Bill's "in the aftermath of Bush" and Ray's "(re)gain trust of the world" are thoughts I frequently have simultaneously. And those thoughts sum up the challenge for the next president to restore our standing in the world.
Had we not let W steer the train twice (as if you can change the direction of a train) perhaps this wouldn't have been such a big challenge. But now, we have to convince the world that we either got fooled (twice), and beg to let us prove we won't get fooled again, or that we believed him and agreed with him... and we really are as bad as our actions since 2001 suggset we are. Either way, our work is cut out for us.. or for the next president.
Which brings me to Ray's take on that. What do you mean "supposedly Obama is a little further to the left of Hillary?" On what is that based? Who supposes this and why?
If ever there were a more moderate Dem than Bill, it's Obama. His vote on the Iraq war is about the only action I can find that might be interpreted as left-leaning, but history seems to indicate it was more "right" (as in correct) than left.
I'm even more surprised by your assessment of McCain as the only "middle of the road candidate." His support of the war puts him close to the Hillary camp if you count their actions (and not the words of the pundits who tell us what their actions mean) and his on and off support of W... well, I don't even know where that puts him, except that I'm sure it puts him out of my consideration for president.
And Ray, when it comes to your final comment... c'mon man, popularity and rapid growth? Is that what you're hanging your beliefs on now? I know you better than that. Surely you're not suggesting that Hannah Monatan's rise is divinely inspired (her popularity is rapidly growing, although I haven't tracked her progress in China)
And don't forget, those same Romans who threw Christians to the lions later adopted Christianity in the hope that it might save their empire. Pagan Romans, Unitarians and Trinitarians sat down to decide how to combine forces to perpetuate Rome's rule. But they had to sort out the whole Uni/Trini split. So they went out and killed the Uni's off, called the result "consensus," and then proceeded to revise the Bible to reflect this consensus,(deleting all unitarian support) thus began the age of Christianity. Add a little spin a few years later from King James, and that's the Book we read today! What's not absolutely DIVINE about that?
Let's pick the religion part up in a new post.
Luth,
I'll answer your political comments here and your religious comments with the next post.
Yes, counting Hillary's actions with the war especially, makes her more moderate, but today she is trying to reverse that impression without losing a middle of the road position. As a NY Senator, she has tried to take a moderate position and has even pushed for legislation favorable to business. I'm just not sold that she is as moderate as she tries to portray herself.
The problem with labels today is there is so much crossover. Many conservatives began to see Bush as being something other than a conservative so McCain's close association with him has not helped. I could support McCain easier if he wasn't so hawkish on the Iraq War. We need to have closure over there, and I'm not sure he will pursue that aggressively enough.
Most pundits have put Obama to the left of Hillary. Looking at their positions relative to business (as an HR professional, that is critical to me at this time) Obama is more liberal and more anti-business. Here is the blog of a highly respected labor lawyer with some of his observations based on the words of the candidates. http://hrheroblogs.com/theword/category/politics-hr/page/3/ His positions relative to unions, FMLA and other acts are to the left of Hillary's positions. These are things that affect our everyday lives. I have angonized over the debacle with his pastor. On one hand, I don't accept religious tests and hate even the appearance of one. So, I don't like the addition of his religion included in the discussions, but I'm also very disappointed with Obama's reaction to his pastor. It makes me wonder if he really does harbor some of the same feelings about white America that Wright does. I wonder what type of advisors Obama would tap to join his administration. But, I read recently that he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate, even more liberal that Ted Kennedy. That says it all for me.
Ignore the labels and the pundits. Listen to the candidates, check their votes (not what pundits say about their votes)
I heard Obama denounce Rev. Wright's comments. (I saw the words come from his mouth) I'm not sure what you heard that makes you think Obama supported Wright.
I was thinking of a new post about how we let the media con us into ignoring 30 years of context (Rev. Wright's career as a pastor) vs. 30 seconds of one sermon handily clipped into a sound bite. And how we then characterize the man's entire life based on that sound bite... so I think I'll save that ridiculousness for later. BUT I won't say Rev. Wright was entirely wrong either... wrong perhaps for misusing his pulpit... errored in judgement using such inflammatory language from his position of authority... BUT is he wrong to speak out about problems we all know exist? I beleive God would damn America for this war, for our treatment of minorities... (add your cause here) Who wouldn't?
It's my country right or wrong, but it's also my duty as a citizen to speak out about what I believe are the wrongs. Are the rules different for Rev. Wright?
Post a Comment