Obama’s intellect is not only great – most of the other Presidential candidates are also very smart people – it is focused in ways that distinguish and set him above the others. In reading The Audacity of Hope, it is evident that Obama is a student of the human personality. His psychological insights are extraordinarily keen – a quality that would be put to tremendous use in the Oval Office. Obama is also a knowledgeable reader of history – another important quality in a world leader.
Beyond his personal qualities, this observer agrees with Andrew Sullivan that electing this son of a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother would make an important statement to the rest of the world about what America is – and what it is becoming.
Experience as a preparation for the Presidency is overrated. There is little outside of the job itself that really prepares the holder for the range of experiences and stresses that he or she will face. People with distinguished records of public service have sometimes made mediocre Presidents – or worse. On the other hand, some of the best Presidents have had limited public experience. Franklin Roosevelt, for example, had four years as Governor of New York and eight years as an Assistant Secretary of the Navy before he was President.
This observer could live with other Presidential candidates. Almost any of the Democrats running will get my support if they get their party's nomination. Nevertheless, Barack Obama stands apart – and as such deserves support in his run for the Presidency.
TER…You want me to vote for Barack Obama because he has charisma, is a persuader, is psychologically insightful and reads history books. In addition to the fact that he is bi-racial which you assert would be message-sending.
<
p>On one hand you negate the value of experience as a qualification, as Obama’s is limited in that regard.
But, on the other hand, you try to equate Obama’s tenure in the Illinois STATE legislature and not yet completed first term in the US Senate with FDR’s 12 years as an elected Governor in NY and as Secretary of the US Navy in DC.
<
p>WOW! That is a huge stretch of imagination.
<
p>I met Barack Obama when he ran for US Senate. I met him again in DC this past Spring. I think Obama has a future in US politics…but, in spite of your endorsement and Oprah’s urging, I cannot vote for him this year. I do not believe he “is the one” for 2008.
<
p>
I don’t negate the value of experience in high elective office – I just think it’s overrated.
<
p>FDR had twelve years of public service when he became President – just as Sen. Obama will at the beginning of 2009. (By the way, FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the Wilson Administration – not the Secretary.)
<
p>One can compare the 12 years of experience for FDR and Obama with 14 years for Richard Nixon (U.S. House, U.S. Senate, Vice President), 25 years of experience for Gerald Ford (all in the House), and 26 years for Lyndon Johnson. Were they better Presidents than FDR?
Another state legislator from Illinois. He wasn’t even a Senator, just a one-term Congressperson from Illinois from 1846-8, and more than a decade out when he was elected President in 1860. Result: one of our greatest President’s ever.
that this kind of argument by extreme counterexample can be confusing. Obama’s not Lincoln, and Bob isn’t claiming that he is. I don’t even think that Bob’s claiming that legislative experience isn’t a good thing to have, merely that it’s not the sine qua non.
<
p>I hope Bob would agree that Lincoln’s exalted status is not the “result” of his relative inexperience. His status simply wasn’t constrained or determined by it.
My point is that experience can have pluses and minuses. Every candidate should be judged by the totality of their advantages and disadvantages. Simply to say reflexively, however, that Obama, as the specific example at hand, doesn’t have enough experience to be a good President, or that, for example, Clinton or Dodd or whomever would be a better President because they have held national office longer than he has, is not a convincing argument. The case of Lincoln, I think, demonstrates that quite convincingly: he only had two years of experience in the Congress when he was elected President, and most people think he did just fine.
HLPeary correctly summarizes TER’s support for Barack as follows:
<
p>
It is not unlike what I have heard other Obama supporters say. Here is why this kind of thinking shows a total lack of understanding about the real world. Another reason why watching too much t.v. can warp one’s sense of the world and the U.S.’s role in it.
First of all, I must rebut the charge of “watching too much t.v.” I don’t think that my steady diet of “Gilligan’s Island” and “Lost in Space” as a child affected too much my ability to see the world as it is.
<
p>I read Reza Aslan’s article – to which TheOpenSociety linked. I think that Aslan’s comparison of Obama to Jimmy Carter is weak. I believe that Obama is far more sophisticated and people-smart than Carter ever was. I also think that Obama is far more aware of his own limitations. Count on a President Obama to place people with the right experience into the “delicate sparring match” that Middle East negotiations can be, for example. (It’s also worth remembering that Carter – with his limitations – did help broker the Camp David accords.)
<
p>I think it’s complete fantasy to completely dismiss the significance of Obama’s heritage. While not everyone outside the West will be moved by it, the fact of Obama’s “difference” cannot help but put a different tone on how the United States is viewed by the rest of the world. In any case, I see Obama’s heritage as only a secondary reason to support him.
<
p>My support of Obama is mainly about his ability to lead. He will have advisors who can help fill in the gaps in his experience. The thing that the President – and only the President – does is to lead. I believe that Obama stands out in this regard.
It’s news to me that Carter’s toasting the Shah had so much impact. Did it really?
This is kind of absurd, no?
<
p>
<
p>Axelrod may be a fine tactician, but it’s not obvious to me that he knows a whole lot about foreign affairs. Is he Obama’s spokesman now? I thought he was a behind-the-scenes guy.
And despite what the WaPo’s DC-insider editorialists may want to believe, this statement is not seriously debatable:
<
p>
<
p>OF COURSE the Iraqi invasion strengthened al-Qaeda in Pakistan: (1) it took the U.S. focus off al-Qaeda in general, and (2) it energized al-Qaeda globally.
<
p>Obama is exactly right in his comments, which are indicative of his sensible, pragmatic, outside-the-beltway approach to most problems. The editorial just rehashes tired conventional wisdom and mindless political boilerplate (as if Edwards calling Musharraf will make any possible difference! what navel-gazing planet do these people live on) which is exactly what has served this country so poorly for the last seven years.
from TPM Election Central (which, by the way, is a superb source of all the latest on campaign goings-on):
<
p>
<
p>Yup, pretty much. The point isn’t whether Hillary should or shouldn’t get a pass on Iraq. Of course she shouldn’t — she, like everyone else, should be held accountable for her positions, and if that costs her your vote, that’s fine. The point is whether, at this moment, presidential candidates should be carping at each other, or whether they should be acting, well, presidential.
Atrios points us to an excellent essay at Corrente: Obama Stump Speech Strategy of Conciliation Considered Harmful. Lambert quotes the following from Obama:
This is set in the context of the billionaires who funded the Conservative Movement with their enormous number of institutions. The conclusion?
But Obama’s strategy of “reaching out” to Republicans has been tried and tried repeatedly, as Lambert, points out. “Reid and Pelosi “reached out” to Republicans, and that strategy was a miserable failure.“
Shorter version: One can no longer “transcend” the food fight. The huge and powerful Conservative Movement institutions will see to that. To say otherwise is to mislead.
This kind of crush-and-destroy rhetoric is the same kind of approach that has served us so poorly for the past seven years, except launched from the other direction.
<
p>We agree, I think, KB on many of the policies we want to see enacted. We disagree completely, however, on the most effective means to that end.
<
p>Let’s say, for example, that John Edwards, the current darling of this kind of “angry-left” approach is elected. What will he accomplish? At best, a result that antagonizes a huge chunk of the country as completely as Bush has antagonized the progressives. Let’s not forget, those people are Americans too. At worst, a reaction that sweeps the Democrats from power nationwide, just as the Republicans have been swept out in the Congress, and accomplishes exactly nothing.
<
p>More practically, Bush’s victories in 2000 and 2004 were aberrations, produced largely by incompetent campaigns by his opponents, in my judgment and personal experience. Obama has built and is waging a competent, effective, national campaign. He has the best chance for victory of any of the Democratic candidates, and will be the best President, in my opinion.
yes, it has served us poorly. But that’s because we have been opposed to most of what’s gone on the last seven years. On the other hand, it has served at least some of those who supported those policies pretty well.
<
p>2006 happened because some of those policies — more precisely, one of them (Iraq) — turned out to be an extremely bad idea that no amount of politicking could hide any longer. Yet Harry ‘n’ Nancy, in their desire to “work with” Republicans, have spectacularly failed to do anything about it. They’ve been outmaneuvered at every turn, and have delivered only crumbs, instead of the expected and promised feast of progressive reform.
<
p>I’m not voting for Edwards, as you know, largely for the reasons you mention. There is of course a candidate who I think has a proven and impressive record of getting things done even under adverse political circumstances. But in any event, KB’s point is a valid one: sometimes there is no room for compromise.
<
p>The essay linked by KB is quite good and raises important questions about the post-partisan utopia some envision under a President Obama. It’s not just mindless Rovianism from the left.
Their side:
Note that there are no liberal institutions of similar size.
<
p>So this is not just a matter of “rhetoric” or of “arguments”. It is a matter of powerful institutions with a lot of money. Will these guys really be open to playing nice? They haven’t in the past.
Consistently, John Edwards also tends to poll better against Republicans than Barack Obama.
<
p>This “Edwards will antagonize argument” has to face those data.
<
p>You’re up!
DailyKos and MoeveOn, as just two examples, are just as antagonistic as The Heritage Foundation, Fox News, and the Federalist Society. They play a useful role, but I don’t think either group, if one can imagine a group as an individual, would make a good President.
<
p>As to Edwards, I already said I think the current Presidential polling data are meaningless.
<
p>I base my assertions about his antagonistic qualities on statements he himself has made, such as for example that health insurance companies shouldn’t even have a seat at the table when discussions about health care reform are made.
I see you don’t like these statements, Bob.
<
p>If Edwards is so antagonizing, why isn’t this reflected in the polling?
<
p>P.S. The Heritage Foundation is widely quoted by Respectable People. Respectable People do not quote Mere Blogs.
Economic Policy Inst, Ctr for American Progress, etc, are avowedly liberal.
<
p>Brookings calls itself “independent” but the New York Times calls it liberal. Brookings is cited almost as much as Heritage.
There are liberal think tanks. They are smaller and less influential. They are less frequently quoted. Their experts appear on television less.
<
p>As for Brookings classification, Brookings has certainly been rather hawkish on Iraq. Brookings is certainly not a partisan liberal think tank like the Economic Policy Institute. The conservative think tanks tend to be much more partisan.
…and, quite frankly, I don’t give a tinkers’ damn what the NYTimes publishes about much of anything. They’ve been known for lying since the 1930s.
<
p>The conservative belief tanks have much more money and are much better at public relations, getting their people onto TV programs. The only possible liberal employee at a conservative belief tank is Norman Ornstein at the American Enterprise Institute, most of whose employees are far right.
<
p>BTW, the Heritage Foundation was founded by the right wing nut-case Paul Weyrich with funding from the right-wing nut case Coors family.
I think they’re pretty similar. In any event, I’m pretty sure those polls don’t mean that much so far out from November.
I’ve been wondering in the context of Obama’s new ad just how he thinks he’s going to unify the two parties.
<
p>Partisanship starts with impeachment over lying about a blowjob. It starts with shutting the government down rather than negotiating with Democrats. It starts with using the flag as a weapon, patriotism as a loyalty oath, and intimidation as a platform. Partisanship is enlisting government employees as campaign workers, politicizing the Department of Justice, and viewing everything through the lens of how does this help the Republican Party?
<
p>I have heard nothing about how Obama is going to change the choices of Republican leaders. How is Barack going to keep Patrick McHenry from being a jerk, Daniel Vitter from being a hypocrite, Tom Delay’s apprentices from following in his footsteps? By playing a game of one-on-one? If Obama’s understudy can’t even tame DiMasi, how is the headliner going to tackle John Boehner, or for that matter Kim Jong Il?
<
p>Democrats insist on bringing knives to gun fights. Now I’m supposed to believe the gun fights will stop if just put the knife down?
No one is suggesting bringing knives to gun fights. The suggestion, to continue the unpleasant metaphor, is that the Democrats, and to an even greater degree the regressive Republicans, have been like a street gang, roving around in the back alleys without being able to fashion a sensible appeal to the people who live in the houses. It’s time for the grown ups to come in and get the police, and the community as a whole, to crack down on the incompetent hooligans — “tired inside the beltway thinking,” in media-speak — who have done so much damage to our town.
Who are the police? The media and voters have abdicated their role, more interested in the horse race than anything else. (Who is following whose lead is a question for another time, but I find it telling that the most informative debates — those on PBS — are the most widely ignored.)
<
p>
The voters haven’t spoken yet. The election hasn’t happened yet.
the media police. She can kick Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russerts ass at the same time
I think Obama’s rhetoric of dialogue and consensus is different from media-driven “bipartisan centrism.”
<
p>Two actual tactics: One, you work with individual Repubs who will defect on individual issues. Look at how far out Hagel went on Iraq. True, it didn’t lead to much under the current administration and Dem cowardice. But these openings are there.
<
p>Two, you use the bully pulpit to reinforce and bring to light the ways in which the majority of the electorate supports the progressive/Dem position, eg on healthcare and foreign policy. You work the press hard on admitting this. Electoral realities — see eg Nov. 2006, and the wave of GOP retirements — are the best weapon to move Republican legislators toward majority views. The real estate crisis and possible resulting recession could also be a catalyst in this regard. In this environment the wannabe Delays can be isolated and portrayed as the extremists they are.
<
p>It’s not about political pacifism, but a more subtle, and arguably ruthless, strategy. See here for such an argument.
The two parties both want to pry off individual Senators from the other while maintaining their unity. Who’s been better at it?
<
p>The Republicans by a mile.
<
p>Hagel — along with Snowe, Voinivich, Graham, Coleman, Spector, and McCain — has been critical on occasion of the occupation and various other misbegotten policies of the Bush Administration. These guys never show up on key votes. Meanwhile, far too many Democrats vote for FISA destruction, Mukasey, and blank checks for Petreus. Senator Feinstein does much more being pried than prying.
<
p>Legislators, of course, specialize in this kind of stuff. Is there evidence to believe Obama is better at it than Kennedy or Leahy?
I’ve seen some arguments that Obama is particularly good at neutralizing conservatives or at getting them to nod at progressive positions. I confess I have not really pondered the evidence for that.
from independent and moderate voters, not to make nice-nice with the hard right Republican leadership. Conservative partisans aren’t going to change, but they can be marginalized if their narrative becomes less attractive to moderates who have voted with them in recent election cycles. The angry left has a place, in spotlighting egregious corruption and keeping the Democratic party accountable. But it can’t by itself reverse the rightward drift of the center since Reagan or provide the point around which a new center will coalesce. Remember that many of the Democratic pick ups in the last Congressional elections came in districts that are “purple,” at best; most were blue dogs, not progressives.
<
p>I don’t see the Democrats winning the presidency with a candidate who is very negative or who abandons the rhetoric of bipartisanship. Anyone here who does should identify what voters he or she thinks will picked up by such a nominee that weren’t already voting Democratic in the past two presidential elections.
is that talking about transcending the food fight is a good strategy. Bush gave repeated speeches suggesting that he was transcending partisanship–while his operatives did the exact opposite.
I do know who Larry Johnson is (former CIA operative) and he and his co-blogger give Obama very low marks in foreign affairs. Obama’s Blunders Tell Me He’s a Naive Neophyte
Samantha Power. I am ok with her. Now of the top three candidates Neither O bama or Edwards have had impressive foreign policy credentials. Biden and Richardson are probably the foreign policy heavyweights. Edwards –seem sto be the least.