Today’s Herald features a Margery Eagan column that mentions “Osama” when refering to Obama, not once but three times.
(NOTE: SINCE I POSTED THIS THE HERALD HAS REPAIRED THE ERRORS ON THE ON-LINE COLUMN LINK…they must have got many complaints!!! Rest assured, there WERE 3 “Osama’s” in the original column on-line) I regret that i did not cut and paste the whole original text.
That error aside, I think her column about the quality of Biden versus the celebrity of the presidential race that the media has complicitly helped create makes a great point.
We are selecting candidates for the highest and most powerful office in the free world based on celebrity, gotcha soundbites and meaningless “show debates.”
Richardson, Biden and Dodd are more qualified and experienced to take on the job they seek. But, Clinton and Obama make better copy this year.
Where is this heading? Perhaps they should dispense with the sham debates and get right to it…American Presidential Idol Call-In Voting. Why debate, why worry about qualifications, it’s about ratings, stupid! and commentator book sales, stupid! it’s about reporting poll numbers instead of issues and incessant poll taking rather than reporting, stupid!
So let’s surrender completely…remove the government middlemen at town halls…let’s text message our choice on election day to Tim Russett, Chris Matthews and everyone covering this so-called election…and they can report the results.
What does it mean to be qualified? If the president locked himself in the Oval Office, never consulted anyone, and ran the entire government by himself, then I’d agree with much of hte assertion about Richardson, Biden, and Dodd — although I’d add Clinton in the mix, since she’s clearly been involved heavily with her husband’s governing, from Arkansas on up to POTUS, and is a Senator herself for the past 7ish years.
<
p>
But a president is not an island. The ability to assemble an all star team which is disciplined and focused on the right issues is really important. The ability to motivate Americans, influence the direction of the press, and otherwise influence the direction of the country from the pulpit is tremendously important too. It’s not at all clear that Richardson, Biden, or Dodd are any more qualified at any of that than Obama, Clinton, or Edwards.
<
p>
I too think the presidential race is far too much of a popularity contest, focused on short sound bites and gotchas. Still, the best wonk does not the best president make. Charisma, leadership, and charm are important, and while it’s true that they’re impossible to measure and leave different impressions on different people, that doesn’t make them any less important.
But a president is not an island. The ability to assemble an all star team which is disciplined and focused on the right issues is really important.
<
p>
…is one of the benefits of a parliamentary form of government. Whether or not the team is “all star,” the electorate has a pretty good idea who comprise the team when they cast their ballots.
Of course, if the electorate demanded it, they might get candidates to discuss their top brass before the election.
<
p>
Of course, it’d be nice if it happened in primary season, however a discussion about potential personnel 10-14 months before the election would be a bit silly…
<
p>
Personally, I love the idea of a shadow government. The president has a Sec of State, and the opposition party would have a shadow Sec of State who would propose alternative tacts, strategies, etc. The same goes for all major positions. End result: more discussion of actual issues and by more people than the half-dozen or so who sop up media time, and many more clear delineations between parties.
…It took me a while to figure out the vernacular, but in the German system each party has a member who is called and Expert/in in a particular area if they are not actually in the government. Similar situation as a shadow government.
<
p>
BTW, there are more than a few talk shows on German TV where substantive political matters are actually discussed, instead of being yelled about incoherently as is typical on American TV.
Political candidates emphasize the arguments that work. There are times when being an outsider or newbie is what voters want, other times it’s being ‘experienced’ and bringing home the pork and whatever.
<
p>
There are times The People doesn’t want much of a leader…there’s no fixed rule at all. It’s very situational, despite all the pretensions by individual people that they are always rational, pick the best or most moral person, vote for the real leader, or whatever.
<
p>
This election the game seems to be at bottom about candidates defining themselves as the end of Nixon/Reagan Republicanism on the Democratic side, or its survival/salvation on the Republican side.
Part of the value of executive experience is knowing whom to hire, and who’s an idiot and shouldn’t be allowed near your office. Remember when we were all told that the “grown-ups” would be charge, and that the boy-king would bring in smart people to do his thinking for him? How’d that turn out?
<
p>
The buck stops there.
Did anyone catch the flap over a comment Michele McPhee made Tuesday on WTKK?
<
p>Funny thing is that she appears to have been paraphrasing (plagiarizing?) something that had appeared in that morning’s Margery Eagan column:
At first glance, the both of them seem to be perpetuating the ugly, discredited myth that homosexuality = ephebophilia. Yet McPhee was made to apologize, and Eagan walked away unscathed. So why the difference in public reaction? Eagan was apparently only stating that such a theory exists- it’s not immediately evident that she believes it. McPhee just came out and stated the theory as a fact.
So the point? I’m not sure there is one, other than Eagan seems to be a bit craftier than McPhee.
…but it was discussed at Dan Kennedy’s MediaNation site. I know, because I had a couple of comments there.
The entire construct of the present democratic primary was crafter by the Clinton’s. Tne Clinton’s are fostering this celeb/beauty contest. If the primary was focussed on bona fide and credentials, Mrs Clinton is going to illustrate what. I had a former president as a sperm donor. Of all the candidates re bona fide, Mr. Richardson would be the clear choice. Richardson has least run something. The rest of that lot have done nothing than expel voluminous amounts of hot air in untruthfullness.
We could use him on the “Debates”.
<
p>
What a contrived waste of time. While the present administration seeks new and more horrific ways to deny our liberties, the “Debaters” ramble on. Let them sign a pact with the people of the United States that roll back the disgraceful rulings of the Cheney/Bush administration. Let them tell us how they will protect our freedoms. Let them dedicate themselves to rule under law. Then I’ll listen.
<
p>
I can’t care too much about government healthcare when I’m incarcerated for thinking the “wrong” thoughts. I don’t care about global warming when no one knows where or if I being held. I don’t care about pearls or diamonds when my children are conscripted to fight wars without end. I don’t care if English is the national language if my loved one are homeless because the American dollar is valueless.
<
p>
Does anyone else sense that there are lots of “dope slaps” to be administered? Is there no shame?
Are you a Republicrat or a Democan?
of the Osama oopsie. I saw it.
Biden’s been in the Senate for ever. And, in that time, he’s been a more consistent vote for the credit industry than the American people. He’s a war hawk and has been caught with more than one Macaca moment (!!). Qualified? Hardly.
<
p>
Richardson has a great resume, but the job of POTUS requires having political instincts – or at least a great political staff. Richardson has proven a failure on both accounts. Qualified? Maybe in the future, but right now he really needs to hone his political skills first.
<
p>
Hillary, on the other hand, has made questionable votes, but there’s no doubt she’s more qualified for the job than at least Biden and – due to what I view as fairly sharp political instincts, albiet not very courageous ones – probably Richardson too. She’ll have been a Senator for 8 years by the time the general election rolls around, and she was in the White House and likely more involved than the American people realize when her husband was in office. Is she super qualified? No, but her resume and history leaves me to believe she’d be an effective President, even if she won’t in any way make me happy when it comes to policy, ideas and political courage.
<
p>
Obama’s qualifications aren’t impressive, I’ll admit that up front. However, to be an effective President doesn’t require being hands on. It requires having a great vision, being able to build a consensus on the key issues of the day, lead and hire effective people to carry out the plans. Obama’s vision thus far has been a disappointment, but he’s done little to dissuade me that he can’t be a good leader, who can inspire the population and create some important change.
<
p>
None of these people thrill me. No person in this race has made me excited. However, your definition of “qualified” is lacking.
The fact that Biden votes differently than you would prefer does not make him unqualified. Unelectable maybe, but unqualified, no.
How people vote on the issues speaks both to their competence and industry connections, either of which can make someone unqualified for office by any sane and reasonable person. Is someone qualified for office if they’ve voted for unjust wars, without enough information and knowing that the people prosecuting said wars are totally incompetent? Or how about when they vote for a bill the credit industry wrote, ‘fixing’ a problem that didn’t exist, that only served to add money to their pockets while the bill failed to make sure there was any balance in it at all? In both cases, I’m speaking about Biden: he’s long been a war hawk who’s votes have proven him completely unqualified for office. I find his position in regards to the bankruptcy bill almost as bad as his initial support for the war, something that only stopped when he initiated his campaign for POTUS. The fact that he’d publicly switch positions after he voted on a certain issue in order to be more appealing to the general population in a quest for POTUS also speaks to his competency.
Who has the tri-fecta? None that I can see. It is not enough for Obama to have vision unless he has learned from the ongoing Patrick Playbook of Political Fumbles aka Rough Patch http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/10/18/casino_proposal_hits_a_rough_patch/ and has Executive skills. Hillary has experience and intelligence but has not the shown solid leadership needed to turn this empire in decline around. Cowardess can be derived from many forms of fear including over attachment to 'political outcomes/gains'.
Biden had my respect some years ago but lost it during all of those confirmation hearings, ugh. Richardson has cred. but thus far not demonstrated the charisma to motivate a nation in desperate need of hope and leadership. Dodd, cred. but not stirring the passion pot either. Kuchinch, God bless him his message is pure.
Edwards, light on foreign policy.
At least none of them are George W. Bush or Dick Cheney who are hopelessly confused with the meaning of EXECUTE-ive skills and leadership.