With an abundance of intelligence, energy, eloquence, and "audacious hope," Barack Obama has opened a commanding lead over his sole remaining rival, Hillary Clinton. If he captures the Democratic nomination, in the general election he will face in Senator John McCain a shopworn supporter of an unpopular war, tainted with scandal, and despised by the right-wing base of the Republican party. Despite all that, McCain will be a formidable GOP opponent, for he will have at his disposal the Justice Department's coast-to-coast campaign of voter suppression, the financial support of mega-corporations, "black-box" voting machines and compilers, and a corporate media that has proven itself capable of transforming, in the minds of many, an authentic war hero into self-promoting phony, and a deserter into the reincarnation of Winston Churchill. Overconfidence may well prove to be Obama's and the Democrats' undoing.
Barack Obama was not my first choice. But John Edwards fell victim to his excessive candor and integrity. His spot-on assessment of economic injustice and his scathing indictment of the corporatocracy was regarded by the media to be outside the realm of "acceptable" political debate. And so Edwards' campaign, starved of funding and media attention, withered and died, a sober reminder of the media's continuing veto power over aspiring candidates for political office.
Obama is not the ideal candidate (there aren't any), and many of his Senate votes trouble me. But in the past few weeks, he has displayed qualities of leadership not previously evident to me. Hillary Clinton might well be a good president. Barack Obama, I believe, has the capacity to be a great president.
Ironically, the totality of attacks on Obama might, on reflection, add up in his favor. For if these are the best that the opposition can come up with, this must be one fine candidate.
With this consideration in mind, I will examine what appears to be three of the more prominent criticisms of Obama: lack experience, "mere rhetoric," and plagiarism.
The Experience Issue: Clinton cites her thirty years of experience in public service. Obama, in contrast, is a newcomer.
The issue is a non-starter for the GOP for whom "experience" as a Hollywood actor (Reagan, Schwartznegger), or "experience" in business failure (George Bush), are somehow regarded as qualifications for high public office. But tuo quoque ("you're another") is a weak rebuttal. The question remains, what are Obama's qualifications?
They are impressive. In addition to his magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, he has taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Because the restoration of the Constitution of the United States must be one of the most urgent tasks of the next president, expertise in Constitutional law must rank high in the list of qualifications.
At age 46, Obama can not claim thirty years experience in public service, since he did not begin his career when he was sixteen. Even so, when he graduated from Harvard Law, he did not seek a fortune as a corporate lawyer, but instead practiced civil rights law. In fact, his entire working life has been devoted to public service.
However, rather than recite his curriculum vitae (which you can read here), let's focus instead on his management skills and those of his rival, Hillary Clinton, in the current campaign. Frank Rich sums it up nicely:
The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it's a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate's message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating....
As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and - talk about bizarre - against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.
With this contrast in management skills in mind, ask yourself: which campaign strategy is more likely to prevail in the general election?
The "mere rhetoric" issue. Early in the campaign, we read that Clinton was a better debater and Obama a better speech-giver. Last Thursday we observed that Obama had closed "the debate gap." He remains the champ at the podium. So Clinton is reduced to belittling Obama's way with words and his extraordinary ability to "make contact" with his audiences. At a campaign appearance at Hunter College in New York City, Clinton said: "It is time that we moved from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions. This is not about a personality. This campaign is about hundreds of millions of Americans who are yearning for leadership again."
Sadly for Clinton, Obama appears to be answering that "yearning for leadership."
Let's not kid ourselves: It's all about envy. Hillary would sell her soul in exchange for Obama's "rock star" charisma. And it ain't for sale.
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. Partridge has taught philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org). His book in progress, "Conscience of a Progressive," can be seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm .
Sorry for the stupid but it sort of goes with the phrase....
Obama has a rather short and almost nondescript resume, while Clinton's is long and much of it is negative ( for me) . Yet I cannot see this groundswell for this fiery orator ( though he moves me not at all, frankly) as anything besides a desperate act by a desperate electorate.
Just my opinion.....votenader.org
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 3:45:43 PM
Certainly the three arguments against Obama on which you focus carry little weight. None of them come close to being a convincing argument against his candidacy.
But I (apparently unlike most "progressives") think issues are important. Obama's political record shows him to be a safely establishment politician who will not rock the boat of the military-industrial complex. If you support the kinds of policies that have long dominated this country, you may not be able to do better than Obama.
However, if you think this country actually needs real change, it's a different story. For example, if you think the kind of priorities that result in the U.S. being #1 in military spending and #15 of the 15 OECD countries in the quality of medical care, I don't see how you could find Obama acceptable since he has consistently supported those priorities.
by
Bill Samuel (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 343 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 7:37:00 PM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
