Why Democrats must choose Obama

[mawilson 2,133]

The manager or the visionary. Hillary Clinton’s own supporters – the candidate herself,

in speech after speech – have cast the fight this way. Stirred emotions and soaring

rhetoric are all very well, goes the line. If that is what you want, vote for Barack Obama.

But if you care about getting something done, choose experience, technical expertise

and a safe pair of hands.

Do not be blinded by passion and excitement. Do not gamble on a dream that way.

Rise to the challenge of being dull. “I am Hillary Clinton, and I endorsed this message.”

It may not be the most alluring pitch, but it has served well enough so far. Such a

boastful lack of sex appeal in a political campaign does command a certain respect. And

after two terms of President George W. Bush, Americans would give a lot for humdrum

competence. The Democratic electorate is split in half and bracing for weeks and maybe

months of further campaigning. Mrs Clinton, on some estimates, is still favourite to win

the nomination.

Still, this was an audacious theme for her to adopt. Hillary Clinton, manager extraordinaire?

It bears repeating that there is a single point of data to test this claim: her supervision

of the healthcare task force set up by her husband during his first term. Opinions differ

even now about that exercise – about whether Mrs Clinton was responsible for one of

the most celebrated domestic-policy train wrecks in recent American history, a scapegoat

for her husband’s misjudgments, or the hapless victim of organised special interests.

What is undisputed is that the whole affair was an epic of hubris and mismanagement.

Yes, that was a regrettable episode, she now says – but she is the stronger for it, having

learned from her mistakes. That is good to know, but since when was failure, unredeemed

by subsequent success, a qualification for the top job? By all accounts, Mrs Clinton has

been a fine senator, as has Mr Obama for a shorter time, but this is not an executive role.

It is good political experience, to be sure, but (unlike having been the successful governor

of a big state, for instance) it tells you little about fitness to manage, and less about fitness

to be president.

The US is tired and discouraged these days. The country is right to seek a little inspiration,

a lifting of the spirits, a sense of renewal. Mrs Clinton is the perfect antithesis of those things.

She is commanding in debate; she knows her facts. But she is dreary and angry at the same

time, which is no easy feat. She personifies partisan division. And, through her husband and

her nostalgia for the 1990s, she is tied to the past. She is indeed the paradigm of business

as usual, with the taint of dynastic succession thrown in. The Democrats would be wrong

to make her their nominee, in my view, even in a field of unexceptional candidates – but

this is not a field of unexceptional candidates.

Make no mistake, Mr Obama is a once-in-a-generation possibility. Admittedly, in many ways

he is too good to be true. Hopes of what he might achieve are running out of control. His

followers say he is uniquely able to restore US standing in the world, partly by adopting a

more conciliatory approach and partly (it seems) by being black. The sad truth is that on

many issues US interests diverge from those of other nations. Any new president could

improve relations with other governments; the current administration has set that bar into

the floor.

But if President Obama aimed first and foremost to advance US interests, as he would, then,

regardless of how enlightened and encompassing his notion of US interests proved to be,

overseas rapture at his election would quickly fade.

At home the disappointment might be worse. He is a liberal (the most liberal in the senate,

according to National Journal’s annual assessment) yet running as a bipartisan moderate.

If he were president, one of those tendencies would have to give way.

And then there is the question of race. Black Americans were initially sceptical about the

Obama candidacy: they backed Mrs Clinton in early polls. But now they have come around,

and how. They have decided he is real; they think he can win; and they long for this

affirmation of their standing in the nation. Gratifying that longing is one of the best reasons

to nominate Mr Obama, but be under no illusion that he or any other president could fix

the problems that have created and entrenched the black urban underclass. Soaring

expectations would have to come to terms with (at the very best) grinding incremental

progress. Again, the disillusionment might be bitter.

All this is true, but secondary. What makes Mr Obama remarkable is that his message of

hope, resonating so powerfully with black America, is cast to every American, regardless

of colour, to Democrats and Republicans alike. This is surpassingly important: a man of

outstanding intellect and magnetic personality, he is running on a one-nation platform, as

though he merely happened to be black. And the best part is, the whole country is paying

attention: polls say that he is more electable in November than Mrs Clinton. In a close

election, he could make the difference.

Republicans, of course, are bound to dislike his liberalism – but what is there for

Democrats to think about? Why are they even having this conversation? They have been

waiting an awfully long time for a politician like Mr Obama. If, having come so close, they

still manage to nominate Mrs Clinton, I think it is a choice they will regret for years and

maybe decades.

Source

[LaL 418]

great article

[kaydee457 13]

All this is true, but secondary. What makes Mr Obama remarkable is that his message of

hope, resonating so powerfully with black America, is cast to every American, regardless

of colour, to Democrats and Republicans alike. This is surpassingly important: a man of

outstanding intellect and magnetic personality, he is running on a one-nation platform, as

though he merely happened to be black. And the best part is, the whole country is paying

attention: polls say that he is more electable in November than Mrs Clinton. In a close

election, he could make the difference.

Republicans, of course, are bound to dislike his liberalism – but what is there for

Democrats to think about? Why are they even having this conversation? They have been

waiting an awfully long time for a politician like Mr Obama. If, having come so close, they

still manage to nominate Mrs Clinton, I think it is a choice they will regret for years and

maybe decades.

Thanks for making my case....Where's the "beef"? Hope, resonating, superior intellect, bla, bla bla......

He's someone that rose to the heights he did by starry eyed optimist that know litlle or nothing about this guy, his supposed policies, politics or his past record......which is pretty sparse!

It's scary the way we chose leaders!

Edited February 11, 2008 by kaydee457

[LaL 418]

It's scary the way we chose leaders!

indeed - case & point - the last 7 years.

[Fandango 1,440]

It shows the ignorance of the public who's voted for him, imo. I mean, a newb running for Prez? lolz The Dems really dropped the ball with their stable of choices this go round. Hell, if Al Gore ran, I'd be worried

Edited February 11, 2008 by LisaD

[peejay 327]

It's scary the way we chose leaders!

indeed - case & point - the last 7 years.

I am no fan of GWB, but he was a successful governor of a state for 2 terms giving him experience in an executive government position. IMO his record as president has not been stellar, but he had an executive record that could be looked at. The USA has a record of choosing former state governors.

Look at Obama's voting record. That's all you got to look at besides the fact that he is a slick talker and has a "cult of personality" following. Teddy Kennedy's endorsement was a big turn off for me too.

Sixteen State Governors have subsequently become President

Jefferson, Monroe - Virginia

Van Buren, Cleveland, T Roosevelt, FD Roosevelt - NY

Polk, A Johnson - Tennessee

Hayes, McKinley - Ohio

Wilson - NJ

Coolidge - Mass

Carter - Georgia

Reagan - California

Clinton - Arkansas

GW Bush - Texas

In addition, two Territorial Governors later became President

Jackson - Florida

WH Harrison - Indiana

Edited February 11, 2008 by peejay

[no name 1]

It's scary the way we chose leaders!

indeed - case & point - the last 7 years.

I am no fan of GWB, but he was a successful governor of a state for 2 terms giving him experience in an executive government position. IMO his record as president has not been stellar, but he had an executive record that could be looked at. The USA has a record of choosing former state governors.

Look at Obama's voting record. That's all you got to look at besides the fact that he is a slick talker.

Not much ON that record, either....but hey, he's ready to bring CHANGE based on a few years.

[Alex+R 0]

Hillz really doesn't have much more experience as a senator than Obama, and less political experience than Obama overall. The "experience" argument is really underwhelming.

Experience is nice, but I don't think there's anything that can prepare someone for being the president. Managerial or gubernatorial experience are clearly not, as (recent and other) history has shown, indicators of good leadership in the presidency. I'll take someone I like and agree with over someone with maybe more experience who seems to be a nasty person.

[GaryC 7]

It's scary the way we chose leaders!

indeed - case & point - the last 7 years.

I am no fan of GWB, but he was a successful governor of a state for 2 terms giving him experience in an executive government position. IMO his record as president has not been stellar, but he had an executive record that could be looked at. The USA has a record of choosing former state governors.

Look at Obama's voting record. That's all you got to look at besides the fact that he is a slick talker.

Not much ON that record, either....but hey, he's ready to bring CHANGE based on a few years.

He has the same experience as Hillary does.

Edited February 11, 2008 by GaryC

[Alex+R 0]

If we want to talk experience, it's either dem, on about equal footing, vs. McCain. McCain is the candidate of experience, and the other two are pretty much equal. Voting for Hillary because of experience would be a mistake based on misinformation and campaign propaganda.

Voting for McCain based on experience would be a mistake, too, but for different reasons. Namely that experience really doesn't predict a successful presidency. Other factors are more important.

[Fandango 1,440]

Hillz really doesn't have much more experience as a senator than Obama, and less political experience than Obama overall.

I am no fan of Hill's but I gotta say, that is just plain silly, Alex...

Edited February 11, 2008 by LisaD

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Obama has held an elected office for 4 years longer than Hillary.

I suppose the problem is that his record in elected office is a little underwhelming.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

It's scary the way we chose leaders!

indeed - case & point - the last 7 years.

I am no fan of GWB, but he was a successful governor of a state for 2 terms giving him experience in an executive government position. IMO his record as president has not been stellar, but he had an executive record that could be looked at. The USA has a record of choosing former state governors.

Look at Obama's voting record. That's all you got to look at besides the fact that he is a slick talker.

Not much ON that record, either....but hey, he's ready to bring CHANGE based on a few years.

He has the same experience as Hillary does.

he had to deal with his spouse getting oral from a subordinate?

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Obama has held an elected office for 4 years longer than Hillary.

I suppose the problem is that his record in elected office is a little underwhelming.

Being married to a president doesn't count as experience, by the way.

[Fandango 1,440]

Obama has held an elected office for 4 years longer than Hillary.

I suppose the problem is that his record in elected office is a little underwhelming.

I dunno if this is in response to my comment or not, so if it is..yeah, you're right as far as technicalities go.

But much of her life has been spent in politics, and there's no discounting the experience she has just from that. For that not to count as experience seems short sighted to me.

If this wasn't in response to me.....carry on, heh.

Obama has held an elected office for 4 years longer than Hillary.

I suppose the problem is that his record in elected office is a little underwhelming.

Being married to a president doesn't count as experience, by the way.

You cited your fiancee's degree in marketing or music in direct response to a question about your experience. Oh, and your best friend's work history as well.

Not to start a poop fling, but living her life as a first lady certainly does give her more in terms of experience.