A primary election campaign is not unlike a war. In this battle for delegates, Barack Obama has proven himself to be the best “Commander in Chief”. From the outset he knew what his strategic objective was. To win delegates. He organized the best strategy to achieve that objective, a 50-state strategy. His speeches inspired his troops to give 110 percent of themselves in execution and support, and he never had to have his red (ink) phone ring at 3AM, or any other time.
Despite his limited experience, Barack Obama has proven himself to be the best “Commander in Chief” of all the candidates to win the war of the Presidential Primaries, on either side,. Succeeding in this endeavor requires all the attributes of a wartime “Commander in Chief” in identifying the objective and then marshalling and organizing all of his forces that are needed to meet that objective. Throughout this campaign, Obama’s organization has always been on the ground first in every state with well- positioned personnel and enough money to put on the ad campaigns needed to win the maximum number of delegates that he could capture.
As FDR inspired the American people with his speeches and fireside chats to first get through the depression and then become the “Arsenal of Democracy” that won World War II and JFK inspired us to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade of the ‘60s, so Barack Obama has inspired millions to work for him, contribute to his candidacy and vote for him, with the feeling that he will make a break from the past and make this a better country and move us toward a better world.
A comparison with the other candidates would be instructive in illustrating the point. On the Democrats side, the minor candidates were never really in it. Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, despite all their experience and expertise, were looked upon as Senators only and could not really be visualized as President. Dennis Kusinich, was too far to the left to be expected to capture enough votes to win a national election. Bill Richardson, despite having all the experience of being a Governor, Cabinet member, and wonderful negotiator, was too soft spoken to ever inspire and lead a Nation. John Edwards proposed the best detailed programs and certainly gave fighting speeches that inspired many, but the speeches told the same stories over and over and he couldn’t get the votes needed to move ahead. (In the business world, trial lawyers are almost never chosen to be the CEOs.)
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive winner when the primary races began, did not show herself to be a good “Commander in Chief”. Her basic strategy was to at least break even in the first few states and then blow the other candidates away during Super Tuesday. She spent her money accordingly, figuring that she would not need much after the February 5th primaries. But she couldn’t find her voice soon enough and she couldn’t make up her mind whether to be tough or human, and she couldn’t figure out how to use her husband, so when February 5th came and went, and the votes were counted, she had not blown everyone away, had to loan herself 5 million dollars, and then had to rethink her strategy for the rest of the race.
Even her victories on the 2nd Super Tuesday, on March 4th, did not give her enough new delegates to put a dent in the Obama lead, which he built up with 11 consecutive victories. She closed the gap by fewer than 10 delegates, all of which will probably be recovered next week in the Wyoming and Mississippi primaries.
But these were not the only strategic blunders she has made. Her decision in 1993 to develop her health care program behind closed doors and without inputs from Congress and the public, probably sank the entire program. Her vote to declare the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization, might have been considered a declaration of war and, of course, her decision to give the President permission to use force in Iraq, was the worst strategic decision of all.
But what about the Republican candidates? Didn’t they have candidates with more experience than Obama? Doesn’t John McCain offer years of military experience and years of time in the Senate, during which time he claims to have been involved in all the major international strategic decisions that have been made by the government, Democratic or Republican?
Yes he does, and he has been, but look at the world those strategies have given us. But before we examine Senator McCain’s record and personality more closely, let’s examine the candidates he beat to become the Republican Party’s nominee.
Rudy Giuliani was the presumptive front runner when the campaigns started, but his strategy to wait until Florida to really get into the race was as bad as his decision to put the Emergency Command Center in the World Trade Center complex after that center had been attacked several years earlier. His decision to use radios that it was known would not work in that environment, was another bad decision. Fortunately, as was stated by one of the pundits, “Like many New Yorkers, Rudi chose to go to Florida to retire and die.”
Fred Thompson was another promising candidate that was supposed to hold up the real conservative part of the party. He waited too long to get into the fray, and when he did, he showed so little enthusiasm that listening to his speeches could put you to sleep. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul were too busy attacking on the right flank to pay much attention to the central front, where most of the action was, and Mitt Romney, although he made lots of money as a business man, couldn’t seem to decide where he stood on the social issues the Republican Party is supposed to believe in and had a stiff demeanor that made it difficult for anyone to be inspired by him. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo were never serious candidates.
That left Senator McCain, as the last man standing.
McCain’s claim to fame includes his service in the military, his time as a prisoner of war, his post Viet Nam war military experience and his time in the Senate. His service to his country and his bravery and loyalty to his fellow prisoners, when he refused to leave prison when offered the opportunity, should be commended, but none of these activities required strategic thinking or action as is required of the President and the “Commander in Chief”.
Since coming to the Senate, he is serving his fourth term, he has worked with the Democrats, at times, to put forth bills, McCain-Feingold (Campaign Finance Reform) and McCain-Kennedy (Comprehensive Immigration), for example, that have not pleased most of the Republican base. On the other hand, he is a strong advocate for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (we could stay there for 1,000 years), he had been urging an increase in troops for Iraq for several years, and he seems perfectly content with the prospect of attacking Iran (bomb, bomb, bomb Iran). These advocacies show poor strategic judgment, especially in light of how stressed our troops are at this time, something he seems not to recognize or accept.
He has run for President a number of times, and in the past, as well as in this campaign, he has not managed the campaign very well. He has spent his money at the wrong times and in the wrong places. His becoming the nominee this time can be credited to his perseverance and to the fact that the other candidates were weak.
Senator McCain has shown bad judgment and an ability to change his positions in many other instances. His participation in the Keating 5 scandal came early in his Senate career, but his strong support for George W. Bush in the 2000 election after the Bush team savaged him in South Carolina, showed that he values party over principle. Several other changes of position have also taken place that bode ill for what he would do as President. The less important one is his change from opposing the Bush tax cuts to now supporting the extension of those cuts.
The more important one relates to his experiences during the Viet-Nam War. After being shot down and seriously wounded, he spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war, during which time he was tortured. At first, his position was that this country should not torture under any circumstances. He has now backed away from that principled position and agrees that under certain circumstances it is acceptable that the CIA be allowed to torture.
Finally, McCain’s military thinking will keep him from using soft diplomacy in dangerous situations. He is also known to have a terrible temper and it is reported that even some generals have commented that this does not make him suitable to be “Commander in Chief”.
Based on all the information we have, the case can be made that Senator Barack Obama is the one most suited to be elected President, become “Commander in Chief”, if necessary, make the correct decisions under pressure, and lead the country and the world to a better place.
Leon
