Barack Obama continues to dominate the news media. Peggy Noonan, not surprisingly, considers him a man from nowhere who doesn’t believe in anything. Reading The Audacity of Hope proves that Obama does have convictions, even if there is reason for peoplle left and right to wonder about the specifics of what he would do in office. In contrast, Rosa Brooks believes that Barack’s ready:
Obama bashers now complain that his two years in the U.S. Senate have been largely devoid of shock and awe. That’s not a bad thing. Obama wisely hasn’t tried to hog the limelight; instead, he’s focused on issues that are unsexy but important.
He forged a sturdy partnership with Indiana Republican Richard Lugar, for instance, and the two successfully sponsored legislation that steps up U.S. support for global programs designed to secure or destroy stocks of conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles, small arms and abandoned ordnance. (Hand-wringing about WMD is de rigueur in Washington, but most politicians forget that it’s conventional weapons that kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, allow terrorists to shoot down aircraft and fuel the bloody conflicts that have killed so many civilians from Darfur to Colombia.) On a dozen equally unglamorous issues, from global warming to our decaying public health system, Obama has shown a similar steady commitment.
In any case, experience, like charisma, can be overrated. A good president doesn’t have to know everything about everything. (If he doesn’t know anything about anything, of course, that’s no good. We’re still trapped in an unhappy national experiment with a guy in that category.) Good presidents strike a balance: They learn all they can, then appoint smart, thoughtful aides, people who can fill in the gaps in their own knowledge and serve as honest brokers. At the end of the day, good presidents need the judgment and common sense necessary to make tough decisions. But to get there, they need to know how to listen and how to nurture, rather than crush, dissenting voices.
We hear from Barack Obama himself in a Chicago Tribune interview:
Asked how he would address the issue of his relative lack of experience, Obama said he thought that the campaign itself–how he managed it, his position on issues and his framing of a vision for the country–would answer the question. “That experience question would be answered at the end of the campaign,” he said.
“The test of leadership in my mind is not going to be what’s on a paper resume,” Obama said. Vice President Dick Cheney, a former defense secretary, and departing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “had the best resume on paper of any foreign policy team and the result has been what I consider to be one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in our history,” he said.
Besides answsering questions on his lack of experience, Obama also addressed the one mini-scandal of his past:
Obama acknowledged “it was stupid” of him to get involved in the purchase almost one year ago of a strip of property adjoining his $1.65 million home from Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who owned a vacant lot next door. Rezko, a political insider and fundraiser, was indicted in October on charges of trying to extort campaign donations and kickbacks from firms seeking state business. Rezko has pleaded not guilty.
“I am the first one to acknowledge that it was a boneheaded move for me to purchase this 10-foot strip from Rezko, given that he was already under a cloud of concern,” Obama said. “I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship.”
On the same day that Obama and his wife closed on their home, Rezko’s wife, Rita, closed on the $625,000 vacant lot next door. Both lots had been part of the same estate, but the owner listed them as separate parcels.
Obama said he has known Rezko for 20 years and “he had never asked me for anything. I’ve never done any favors for him.”
“There was no sense of betrayal of the public trust here,” Obama said.
His team has to be worried about the impression this story will generate. It gives the same impression as Whitewater did for the Clintons. It remains to be seen how much this story haunts him on the campaign trail and whether it will hurt his credibility.
I figure we can see how this plays out now and there’s plenty of time to get all the facts and see if this will affect his credibility before the caucuses and primaries begin. So far I’m not convinced there’s much of anything here, but if there is that could bring an end to the recent Obamamania.
Ron, you are correct, they may not be any illegal or unethical activity on the part of Obama, but it couldn’t have come a more inopportune moment when his potential campaign is just in the early stages. Even if dem voters aren’t willing to write off Obama just yet, negative publicity of any kind by the MSM can be hurtful at this stage of his potential presidential campaign. His advisers can’t be happy about this.
It’s wonderful to be in a part of Rural Red that bleeds a bit Purple… 🙂
I was with a group of women writers the other day looking at pictures a friend of ours took of her trip to China and Tibet, when one of the women leaned over and whispered, “Who do you think we’ll get?” I looked at her and said, “Obama is too green, I’m betting on Kerry.” She nodded and said, “Obama to too young and inexperienced.”
It’s amazing such shorthand exists… but it does. Another couple, my husband and I are going to meet up with this woman and her husband after they return from a trip to London (it’s great to have friends that travel!) and I imagine it will be a wide open opportunity to talk politics and who’s the best candidate to back in 2008.
This woman is a known writer in KC with contacts out the wazoo. I love the chances to offer information about who I think best represents our chances in 08 to people like her. Sorry Obama, you don’t make the cut… yet. Call in a few years.
😉
It will be interesting to see if the experience issue remains strong with the general public. As with his property purchase, whether he will make a viable candidate depends upon attitudes on this. We have over a year until the caucuses and primaries to see how it works out.
I’m not convinced that the experience issue will make a tremendous difference. Its been pretty obvious that most voters do not look closely at experience and abilities. If they did, we wouldn’t have had George Bush even be close to either Al Gore or John Kerry. Voters vote for the candidate who excites them, and to some degree who they think represents their views (keeping in mind that most don’t have clearly outlined political philosophies). At the moment Obama looks like he could do well on those grounds, regardless of whether he should be considered based upon his inexperience.
From Obama’s standpoint it makes sense to run now. You never know when lightening will strike and you have to go when you are hot. Even if he fails (assuming it isn’t because of scandal) he will be in an excellent positon for the VP spot and also would likely remain in a good position to run in the future.
KJ speaks for me; I agree with her 100%.
I like Obama well enough, and I appreciate his intelligence, but HE’S NOT READY TO BE PRESIDENT , and he’s not yet tested sufficiently in the crucible of national politics. He’s not even been tested much in the Senate yet; so far his votes and speeches there have been very cautious, and, in several cases, surprisingly conservative.
Obama has got plenty of time. Even in 8 years, he’d still be only 53! The longer he waits, the better it is for his family. If he’s really got the Right Stuff, he will be in only a more solid position in future elections, with his talents deepened and burnished by experience.
Our country is in such deep trouble, we absolutely, literally, cannot afford another president who (like Clinton, in his first term, and W., throughout his presidency) needs on-the-job training. We don’t have time. I like to think that, with the wreckage wrought by this wretched presidency– in Iraq, the economy, the environment, Katrina, and on and on–voters have finally seen that experience and depth does matter. That, in fact, it REALLY matters, especially with the wreckage of Iraq.
Experience is not only thing that matters:integrity and good judgment (both utterly lacking in the current administratin) , for instance, are also important. But , for our country, right now, at what I believe to be the most dangerous juncture in our history, an experienced president is CRUCIAL. It’s not enough to have experienced advisors. We need a PRESIDENT who knows what’s up, who’s ready to take on the job on Day 1. A president who’s been tested and vetted every which way. A president with good judgment, intelligence, and integrity, AND long, deep , broad experience in the many problems–military, international, domestic, environmental, economic– confronting our damaged country.
One of the reasons I think Obama has not been strong on his Iraq war views is that he voted for Rice for secretary of state. He also voted against Kerry and Feingold resolution to set a date to redeploy troops from Iraq. Knowing her record on the run up to this war, it is hard to understand why he voted for her when every other dem was voting against her nomination. Also he didn’t ask her the tough questions Sen. Kerry, Feingold, Dodd, Sarbanes Boxer and even Chafee a repub asked her.
What mbk said.
Now, more than ever, we need a President with experience.
Probus, thanks for that information. I hadn’t kept track of Obama’s votes and didn’t realize he had voted for Condi Rice. That decision shows a lapse of judgment, imo!
Ron, we’re going to have to MAKE experience (and intelligence) an issue in the 2008 race.
MBK, just re-read this, it’s quite stirring! Love the “tested and vetted”:
“We need a PRESIDENT who knows what’s up, who’s ready to take on the job on Day 1. A president who’s been tested and vetted every which way. A president with good judgment, intelligence, and integrity, AND long, deep , broad experience in the many problems–military, international, domestic, environmental, economic– confronting our damaged country.”
~~MBK
In general principles there is no question that someone with experience is preferable to someone without experience. In looking at specific choices, there’s also no question that Kerry would be preferable to Obama. However I would also avoid making experience the major issue here. What if this comes down to Obama versus Hillary? I’ll still have to hear more specifics from Obama (as should come out during a campaign) but at this point I’d strongly lean towards supporting Obama if he becomes the candidate left standing who can stop her next year.
Then there’s the general election campaign. Unlike with Bush, those being mentioned as probably GOP candidates are all people with experience. If experience was the criteria, they’d all have a much stronger case than Obama, but would you vote for them over Obama?
The Bush experience certainly shows the problem of someone without experience being President, however the problem with Bush wasn’t purely that of lack of experience. Bush’s main problems are lack of intellectual curiosity and a lack of support for democratic principles. If Bush had years of experience he might be just as bad. After all, Bush has experience now in the sense that he’s been President for six years, but he’s not showing that he has learned anything.
Relying on advisors is not the ideal situation. A President must still have enough experience to decide what is best when provided with different advice–and hopefully most Presidents won’t be line Bush in only listening to one viewpoint. While Obama isn’t the ideal candidate in light of his limited experience, at least I see signs that he has more intelligence than Bush in terms of being able to consider various options and pick a sensible course. Of course it would be preferable to have someone who has dealt with the national and international issues longer and has their own ideas as to how to repair the damage done by the Republicans.
GWB got by initially by using Reagan’s reasoning that “I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but by god I have people around me that ARE the sharpest tools in shed.” So he was given huge passes for decisions that needed serious scrutiny. Now that GWB’s advisors have been shown to be less than the sharpest tools in the shed, hopefully American voters will put two and two together and demand at least a bit of intelligence and experience in the person they vote for President, knowing a group of incompetant advisors as well as C+ student = the mess in Afghanistan, Iraq and oh yes, the incompetance shown by ignoring a memo titled: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”
Side note: I can’t help but think of Jimi Hendrix’s song, “Are You Experienced” when reading all these posts about experience. 😉
At very least Kerry needs to make this an issue, even if experience isn’t the only consideation in choosing between candidates. Obviously any candidate should push their strengths. Kerry has the advantage that his strength here is one that is quite relevant.
It would be interesting to see Obama and Edwards facing Kerry in a debate. (Hillary could hold her own in terms of experience, but there are other areas beyond experience where Kerry could show an advantage.)
There are similarities but also differences between Reagan and Bush. Neither has the knowledge of a John Kerry. At least Reagan did have more wisdom (even possibly in the early stages of Alzheimer’s) than Bush. I think Reagan was around long enough to know the difference between right wing rhetoric to arose the base and actually governing. Bush campaigned as a moderate and has governed as a far right extremist. Reagan’s rhetoric was more exteme than Bush’s, but he governed far more moderately–perhaps being forced to by having a Democratic Congress. Perhaps one good thing about having a President actually govern from the far right is that the voters got a good look at what the right wing is about and ultimately rejected them in 2006. While obviously canddiates who appeal to the GOP base have the edge in primaries, I wouldn’t be shocked if Guiliani wins due to people rejecting the far right. Hopefully McCain doesn’t continue to get away with being considered a moderate.