« Who is John McCain? Really, who is he? | kedar's Blog | What is the matter with Americans (more important Democrats and the Media)? »
Electability Bullshit
I am no big fan of Obama. He does not come off as a policy person, does not provide specific ideas, does not educate the public, does not engage in conversations until he is forced to.
And I am a skeptic of his Iraq plan. He has never spoken at length of the sufferings of the Iraqis.
And I don't find him charismatic or super-eloquent, or even super handsome.
All that said, I believe Obama is the most temperamentally, emotionally, and intellectually suited to be the President - not even JFK let alone Mr. Clinton, in my opinion, was so qualified.
Which brings me to one component of the debate - Electability: Can Obama really win the general against John McCain?
a) Oh my God, McCain will say he is linked to terrorist
b) Oh my God, Republicans will link him to Wright
c) Oh my God, Republicans will portray him and his family as America haters
d) Oh my God, Republicans will say that he is elitist and is not in touch with Real America
I have heard these questions over and over and over and over again. Not just from Clinton surrogates, (empty) talking heads, and even Obama supporters. And I am forced to ask myself: Are democrats such set of cowards that they are not even confident that they can plan a counter attack that they want to nominate a candidate who is less controversial or has been fully vetted even if he or she is hollow?
And NO, anyone who says that there are very few differences, if any, between Clinton and Obama are wrong. There is a huge temperamental difference, and a huge emotional restraint difference.
I am convinced that Hillary's Administration will be no different, in many aspects, to George W. Bush's, and it is of no benefit my causes: Transparency, treatment of citizens as adults rather than as children, and pushing for, and convincing citizens to share collective responsibility and sacrifice.
To me this election, at the primary level and at the national level, is either fundamental democratic change or no change. I am tempted to say I would rather choose that "no change" which will make it possible for me to choose the change I want next time around.
And I am a skeptic of his Iraq plan. He has never spoken at length of the sufferings of the Iraqis.
And I don't find him charismatic or super-eloquent, or even super handsome.
All that said, I believe Obama is the most temperamentally, emotionally, and intellectually suited to be the President - not even JFK let alone Mr. Clinton, in my opinion, was so qualified.
Which brings me to one component of the debate - Electability: Can Obama really win the general against John McCain?
a) Oh my God, McCain will say he is linked to terrorist
b) Oh my God, Republicans will link him to Wright
c) Oh my God, Republicans will portray him and his family as America haters
d) Oh my God, Republicans will say that he is elitist and is not in touch with Real America
I have heard these questions over and over and over and over again. Not just from Clinton surrogates, (empty) talking heads, and even Obama supporters. And I am forced to ask myself: Are democrats such set of cowards that they are not even confident that they can plan a counter attack that they want to nominate a candidate who is less controversial or has been fully vetted even if he or she is hollow?
And NO, anyone who says that there are very few differences, if any, between Clinton and Obama are wrong. There is a huge temperamental difference, and a huge emotional restraint difference.
I am convinced that Hillary's Administration will be no different, in many aspects, to George W. Bush's, and it is of no benefit my causes: Transparency, treatment of citizens as adults rather than as children, and pushing for, and convincing citizens to share collective responsibility and sacrifice.
To me this election, at the primary level and at the national level, is either fundamental democratic change or no change. I am tempted to say I would rather choose that "no change" which will make it possible for me to choose the change I want next time around.
Advertisement
It has to be frustrating for you that Obama went on FOX yesterday and said he was going to take his electability argument to the super delegates. Quite a change of position. But there is good news. Apparently, he has decided that he has a good chance in Indiana. If he wins Indiana, he'll make his electability pitch and win the argument. Clinton will be out of arguments.
April 28, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
While my opinion differs from yours in my evaluation of Obama's skill with policy/ideas/educating the public (I've been listening to his podcasts for years, and find him to be very much the Professor-type in that forum), I think you point out an important distinction and that is that being an influential President does not necessarily require that the individual be an expert in these areas.
Two examples of strong influence:
1) Bush, policy idiot but very influential (in horrible ways) for his party and his parties "ideas."
2) Reagan, not interested in policy, very influential in tremendous generation changing ways to his party and the nation's perception of that party and themselves, so influential in fact that it has taken this current criminal enterprise to finally blunt or at least steady their influence.
Weak influence:
1) Clinton. Very smart on policy, educating public, all the rubrics you mentioned. Not very influential as a President. Bad for his party down ticket during his Presidency and in the election that followed.
Lesson: Nothing definitive, obviously. Just that Presidents have influence in bigger conceptual ways that transcend (you could argue this is a bad thing) the rubrics you mentioned (policy skills/specificity of ideas/engagement.)
April 28, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is where the experience arguments fall short. The office of the POTUS is more an art than a technical exercise in public policy. So for some one well versed in policy and have a excellent aptitude for policymaking process obviously can better serve the public in congress. The presidency is more all about offering direction and influencing everyone to move in that direction. Legislative details on how this can be done is hammered out in congress any so there is no need for the president to be a policy wonk as long (s)he was enough policy wonk allies in congress to be effective.
April 28, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink