From the news wires tonight: COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The man who served as national manager of former President Clinton's 1992 campaign endorsed Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday. David Wilhelm, who led the campaign and later became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Obama had the unique ability to encourage cooperation as a 65-percent president after the divisive years of a 51-percent majority.
As the great American author Kurt Vonnegut used to say, "So it goes."
Why is Senator Barack Obama, the Captain Marvelous of an ever hopeful American liberal/moderate electorate, gaining advantage over HIllary Clinton in the Democratic Primary Battles? I think a big part of this is because he lacks experience--an asset in politics which is the one profession where being untested is a badge of honor among many. And somehow voters see his passion to be the second youngest elected President (after John Kennedy) not as a presumptive grasp for power. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, can pursue the very same goal as her rival and be seen by many in her party (and her conservative enemies, who are legion) as a grasping old politico who will say anything to be President. Hillary is the new Richard Nixon to Obama's John Kennedy. This is ironic as all get out, of course, because back in 1974 Mrs. Clinton was a young lawyer on the staff of the Congressional committee that drew up the articles of impeachment against the canny, cunning but also self-destructive Dick Nixon.
So why does having more solid experience than her rival, and having a mate who was President for eight years, count AGAINST her in the primaries? I would think voters would, if they were Democrats at least, want to elect a President with both experience in her resume and readily at hand. We as a nation are after all electing the Leader of a major country with more than its share of economic and military power. And as I go over the points for and against these candidates in my head, I think I like experience over fuzzy promises of hope and change that are made with passion and eloquence but are unlikely to win over hearts and minds where it counts--in those corridors of Capitol Hill where bills become laws and matters of war and peace are settled.
I suppose the thinking goes that Senator Obama is the "agent of change", "the new JF Kennedy", "the solution to the politics of old", etc. But Obama is also a guy who has never had to run a tough race in his short political life. Nor has he yet been subject to scrutiny by the conservative media pundits. Hillary Clinton has had such scrutiny in spades and she is still standing. In that case I have to say advantage Hillary.
The difference between Hillary and Barack on major issues is negligible. Those points being equal, having more experience in the corridors of power would make it more likely that Clinton could steer legislation on matters like health care and foreign policy goals through Congress. Again, advantage Hillary.
But Obama is the person of the hour nonetheless. How he will do when he faces a wily old survivor like Senator John McCain--who is maybe the ultimate survivor in more ways than one--is another matter. I wouldn't be surprised if the new JFK looks like the second coming of John Kerry come November.
I'm going to admit that I'm giving Obama a serious look right now. I've been watching him with interest for some time now. I like what he says. But even more importantly I like what he is not - old time politics. That certainly does not apply to Clinton and McCain.
ReplyDeleteI've not decided yet for sure about this and I have until November to do so. But right now he looks pretty promising to me.
Obviously I have reservations on his true electibility, but I salute your openmindedness.
ReplyDeleteHillary has no real experience. As I've said before in other forums, for Hillary to say she has experience is the same as a flight attendant saying she should fly the plane because she's been in the same part of the aircraft as the pilot for eight years. Watching someone else pilot is not the same as piloting. Being a Senator doesn't make one ready to be President. (I realize that the same applies to Senator Obama,but he's not making claims about how much experience he has, or how ready he is, based on some association with a relative by marriage.)
ReplyDeleteBeing President, when you look at it, isn't even a pilot's job. It's more of a tightrope walk. You can't claim experience with it unless you've been on the rope. Claiming to be the next great tightrope walker because you've seen it done is not only fatuous, it's outright deluded.
Senator Obama knows he has things to learn. Hillary already believes she knows it all. That makes him smart, and her dangerous.
As Ronald Reagan showed during his Presidency, if you can get the people to move with you in pursuit of a vision, good things will happen. Senator Obama inspires confidence, and people want to go along with the ideals he espouses. Hillary, on the other hand, wants to tell the great unwashed what's good for them. "If you elect me President," she says, "I'll do this, and then I'll do that." She doesn't include the people in the vision. (Perhaps people don't want to be bothered, and just want Mama Hillary to make the Bad Thing go away. That wouldn't be my favorite part of the electorate.) On the other hand, Senator Obama is inclusive. "Together, we can bring about change...." It's patently obvious (given 12 years of history to peruse), that Hillary knows what's good for us, and isn't afraid to rule through fear. Senator Obama, at least, appears to be familiar with the concept of the consent of the governed.
At the end of the day, though, Presidents don't really change things. The Congress changes things. The President can either sign or not sign on the dotted line. The Congress should be following the lead of the people and the states; the President can provide the vision and the encouragement, but nothing really changes until the people get behind it, and the Congress follows that lead. Senator Obama seems to want to motivate the people to join him in the vision.
Hillary, on the other hand, appears only to want the people to sit down, strap in, and shut up.
Who's the better candidate?
Obama seems to want to pull people together and llary wamts to divide them (I realize it is not that simple). Neither one of them have a lot of experience. I am not a Republican and have never voted for a "Republican" in 26 years. I have voted for a couple of independants. I am really leaning towrds McCain. His politics are along party lines but what he thinks is good for the country. It will be interesting to see who runs against McCain
ReplyDeleteNo matter which likely Presidential candidate gets the most votes in November, if the past is any prologue to the future, that candidate will have flaws. Clinton's success in reducing the budget deficit was marred by his personal flaws; Reagan's visions were marred by a certain distance from his subordinates that brought about his own policy scandals at EPA and the Iran-Contra Affair. It is a tightrope walk in a lot of ways, and the line between an experienced confident leader and a cocky, self-deluded one I will leave to each of us to sort out.
ReplyDeleteI am gratified that so many of my blogging and non-blogging friends are more serious about looking at candidates from parties they don't normally support. We may actually be entering a new era as opposed to say 2000 and 2004, when the public elected a President with a narrow majority of support.
He did not win the majority he won the electorial
ReplyDeleteYes, that's true. Thanks for the correction.
ReplyDeleteI guess my point was it was a close election--I'm hoping the next President has more of a mandate than in 2000 (or the disputed elections of 1960 or 1876, et al.)
I hope so as well
ReplyDelete