Normally I don't care which Blame America Firster the libs annoint to take the economy back to the Stone Age. I rank Ronald Reagan in my top 5 greatest US Presidents, for example. So my interest in which one they serve up as flag-bearer to explain why material progress is evil and the government should decide how you should live your life and spend your money is akin to my interest in which boy band is the best. No matter what, you know the winner will suck.
But as an advocate, some of the arguments made against Sen. Obama's candidacy seriously take me aback. That's a hard feat, given the overwhelming cynicism that having worked in politics instilled in me. So what follows is a not exhaustive list of some of these arguments, and a not detailed response. There's probably about four or five go-rounds one could make on each of these; lets just pretend we did those and I'll tell you where we would wind up. Oh, and none of this is intended necessarily to indict Sen. Clinton; if you're for her, knock yourself out. I just can't take some of the arguments she and others make against Sen. Obama.
He has no experience. Unless sleeping with the President counts as experience (in which case Gennifer Flowers is equally qualified to be President), what are Sen. Clinton's claims to greater or richer experience? She is a Yale Law School graduate, has been a prominent lawyer in a small state capitol, a Senator for eight years, and First Lady for the same time. As First Lady, she spearheaded perhaps the worst legisative debacle in the post-war period (health care reform), and was relegated to more behind the scenes duties thereafter. While First Lady, she traveled to a lot of countries...and met the wives of their leaders. She parachuted into New York, the state where her husband retained his greatest popularity, and won office when her main opponent dropped out due to health issues. Sen. Obama graduated from Harvard Law School where he was Law Review editor, also practiced law, lived for a time in Indonesia, has been a legislator longer than Sen. Clinton (entered Illinois Senate in 1996), and managed the difficult feat of passing legislation in his first US Senate term. So while Sen. Clinton has "been around it" longer, her first hand experience hardly dwarfs Sen. Obama's. A young John Kennedy had less government experience than Sen. Obama for that matter. On the other hand, what guarantee does experience give that its possessor will make a good president? Bush 41 had the greatest possible claim to experience one can imagine and lasted exactly one term. Jimmy Carter had been a governor, state legislator, naval officer and engineer. If "experience" was what mattered most, Sens. Biden and Dodd would still be in the race. Experience as a factor hardly gives Sen. Clinton an advantage.
He's not black. Well, he is in Mississippi. Put another way, he's subject to discrimination by virtue of his skin color; the old "one drop" standard that prevailed under Jim Crow. To my knowledge, racists don't particularly recognize exceptions for dark-skinned persons because they had a white ancestor, or their parent was from Kenya or the like (its like the line from Blazing Saddles: "to tell a family secret, my grandmother was Dutch"). Now, was Sen. Obama on the Selma Bridge or did he face down Bull Conner's hoses and dogs? No. Has he faced a lifetime of discrimination and bigotry? Sounds like he has not. But he did represent civil rights claimants and community organizers in Chicago; no less than Thurgood Marshall "made his bones" through civil rights litigation too. Sen. Obama has dark skin, and lived in and represented a city where Martin Luther King Jr. said he experienced the most hostile and hateful white racism in his entire life. How "black" do you have to be before you qualify as "black"? Apparently, African-American voters think he's part of the group; that should be sufficient. Oh, and if white man Bill Clinton can seriously claim to be a "black" president, surely someone who actually is black has at least as strong a claim.
He's never run a "real" election. Seems to be doing pretty well so far. Winning any election is difficult; winning several shows you have some idea what you're doing.
He has never run any large organization. I think the only thing Sen. Clinton ran herself (unless you buy into the Billary theory), albeit as one of many partners, was the Rose Law Firm. The one where one of her partners wound up in prison, and a second one was forced to resign from the Justice Department over failure to pay taxes. The one where she couldn't find large portions of her personal billing records during a federal investigation of her time at that firm. Sen. Obama has supervised a so-far successful presidential campaign for more than a year, overseeing thousands of volunteers and a growing paid staff.
He is all image and no substance. No one ever charged a hill or manned the ramparts because of a 12 point plan. If policy particulars got people elected, Al Gore would have swept 50 states. The President is both head of government and head of state. Believe it or not, most people vote for who they think would be better head of state/leader of the free world than who has the most detailed plan. Besides, most of these types of plans get chopped to pieces once they make it to the Hill. Remember Social Security reform, gays in the military, health care reform? Still waiting. Finally, its not like Obama doesn't have ideas. His web site lists zillions of moronic ideas on how to further suppress individual creativity and freedom in favor of government (and union) control, which should make him enormously popular with blue staters nationwide.
The main reason to vote against Sen. Obama is the ridiculous rock star fawning, sycophant-like adulation he gets, nicely harpooned by Saturday Night Live several weeks ago. He's like a real life Tommy, with seas of well-meaning followers entranced by him personally, believing in him as much because of the qualities they invest in him themselves than what he actually stands for. Will these followers eventually decide they're not going to take it, as did Tommy's, or will they follow him over the cliff? It will be interesting to see. Meanwhile, excuse me while I go convert all my mutual fund holdings into gold and euro money market funds.
But as an advocate, some of the arguments made against Sen. Obama's candidacy seriously take me aback. That's a hard feat, given the overwhelming cynicism that having worked in politics instilled in me. So what follows is a not exhaustive list of some of these arguments, and a not detailed response. There's probably about four or five go-rounds one could make on each of these; lets just pretend we did those and I'll tell you where we would wind up. Oh, and none of this is intended necessarily to indict Sen. Clinton; if you're for her, knock yourself out. I just can't take some of the arguments she and others make against Sen. Obama.
He has no experience. Unless sleeping with the President counts as experience (in which case Gennifer Flowers is equally qualified to be President), what are Sen. Clinton's claims to greater or richer experience? She is a Yale Law School graduate, has been a prominent lawyer in a small state capitol, a Senator for eight years, and First Lady for the same time. As First Lady, she spearheaded perhaps the worst legisative debacle in the post-war period (health care reform), and was relegated to more behind the scenes duties thereafter. While First Lady, she traveled to a lot of countries...and met the wives of their leaders. She parachuted into New York, the state where her husband retained his greatest popularity, and won office when her main opponent dropped out due to health issues. Sen. Obama graduated from Harvard Law School where he was Law Review editor, also practiced law, lived for a time in Indonesia, has been a legislator longer than Sen. Clinton (entered Illinois Senate in 1996), and managed the difficult feat of passing legislation in his first US Senate term. So while Sen. Clinton has "been around it" longer, her first hand experience hardly dwarfs Sen. Obama's. A young John Kennedy had less government experience than Sen. Obama for that matter. On the other hand, what guarantee does experience give that its possessor will make a good president? Bush 41 had the greatest possible claim to experience one can imagine and lasted exactly one term. Jimmy Carter had been a governor, state legislator, naval officer and engineer. If "experience" was what mattered most, Sens. Biden and Dodd would still be in the race. Experience as a factor hardly gives Sen. Clinton an advantage.
He's not black. Well, he is in Mississippi. Put another way, he's subject to discrimination by virtue of his skin color; the old "one drop" standard that prevailed under Jim Crow. To my knowledge, racists don't particularly recognize exceptions for dark-skinned persons because they had a white ancestor, or their parent was from Kenya or the like (its like the line from Blazing Saddles: "to tell a family secret, my grandmother was Dutch"). Now, was Sen. Obama on the Selma Bridge or did he face down Bull Conner's hoses and dogs? No. Has he faced a lifetime of discrimination and bigotry? Sounds like he has not. But he did represent civil rights claimants and community organizers in Chicago; no less than Thurgood Marshall "made his bones" through civil rights litigation too. Sen. Obama has dark skin, and lived in and represented a city where Martin Luther King Jr. said he experienced the most hostile and hateful white racism in his entire life. How "black" do you have to be before you qualify as "black"? Apparently, African-American voters think he's part of the group; that should be sufficient. Oh, and if white man Bill Clinton can seriously claim to be a "black" president, surely someone who actually is black has at least as strong a claim.
He's never run a "real" election. Seems to be doing pretty well so far. Winning any election is difficult; winning several shows you have some idea what you're doing.
He has never run any large organization. I think the only thing Sen. Clinton ran herself (unless you buy into the Billary theory), albeit as one of many partners, was the Rose Law Firm. The one where one of her partners wound up in prison, and a second one was forced to resign from the Justice Department over failure to pay taxes. The one where she couldn't find large portions of her personal billing records during a federal investigation of her time at that firm. Sen. Obama has supervised a so-far successful presidential campaign for more than a year, overseeing thousands of volunteers and a growing paid staff.
He is all image and no substance. No one ever charged a hill or manned the ramparts because of a 12 point plan. If policy particulars got people elected, Al Gore would have swept 50 states. The President is both head of government and head of state. Believe it or not, most people vote for who they think would be better head of state/leader of the free world than who has the most detailed plan. Besides, most of these types of plans get chopped to pieces once they make it to the Hill. Remember Social Security reform, gays in the military, health care reform? Still waiting. Finally, its not like Obama doesn't have ideas. His web site lists zillions of moronic ideas on how to further suppress individual creativity and freedom in favor of government (and union) control, which should make him enormously popular with blue staters nationwide.
The main reason to vote against Sen. Obama is the ridiculous rock star fawning, sycophant-like adulation he gets, nicely harpooned by Saturday Night Live several weeks ago. He's like a real life Tommy, with seas of well-meaning followers entranced by him personally, believing in him as much because of the qualities they invest in him themselves than what he actually stands for. Will these followers eventually decide they're not going to take it, as did Tommy's, or will they follow him over the cliff? It will be interesting to see. Meanwhile, excuse me while I go convert all my mutual fund holdings into gold and euro money market funds.
* * * *
How sweet was today's Rockets victory over the Lakers? There's never anything better than beating self-obssessed Kobe Bryant, especially after he put so much effort into being the one to stop the Rockets' streak. Maybe now Charles Barkley and all the national talking heads will give Houston some modicum of respect as a good basketball team. Oh, I guess it was because Gasol didn't play. Never mind that we haven't had our center since February.
2 comments:
Try inserting a picture of Obama in a picture with the Wiggles.
The Tommy analogy was brilliant.
Post a Comment