|
||
The Case for Obama's Readiness
Hillary Clinton's success in Texas and Ohio suggest that questioning Barack Obama's readiness to lead may be a tactic that can resonate with voters. Though exit polling data from Wisconsin and other recent state primaries had suggested that voters saw Obama and Clinton as equally capable to be commander in chief, new numbers reveal a shift. A Newsweek poll now shows Clinton beating Obama on readiness with a 12-point margin.
The poll also finds that only four percent of Democratic primary voters view national security as their top priority. But if Clinton continues to make national security the centerpiece of her campaign, we may see those numbers begin to increase.
Much of the media views Obama as facing a delicate and unique challenge. It will be difficult, they argue, for him to repudiate her attacks without appearing to have abdicated the high ground. For the most part, this portrayal is overblown. The last six months of the Democratic race have included serious and sustained negative attacks from the Clinton campaign; throughout all of it, Obama has been able to attack swiftly from a defensive position without undercutting the rationale of his candidacy, or damaging his persona.
Yet these new attacks do bring with them a sense of urgency. Hillary Clinton has displayed a surprising willingness to paint her Democratic rival as less qualified than the Republican nominee. Her success won't do much to deliver her the nomination, now nearly out of reach. But it may help produce vulnerabilities in Obama's armor, each of which will be meticulously exploited by John McCain. As a result, Obama must respond quickly, making an honest case for his readiness.
But if he is to convince the voters of his readiness to lead, he must first define what it means to be ready.
The presidency requires a vast knowledge base, not just of policy, but of philosophy and history. Each decision requires a distinct framework of thinking, one that has been shaped by collective wisdom. Surely Barack Obama meets this test -- the Harvard Law Review editor, turned constitutional law professor, turned United States Senator. Obama brings to bear a deep understanding of the world around him.
The president must also be capable of asking thorough questions to his advisers, the only real tool for analyzing the validity of disparate arguments. A knowledge base is a prerequisite for such an ability, but it is not sufficient to guarantee it. One must be able to connect what, to some, may seem unconnected, to draw analogies to history and politics that help frame the decision. It requires instinct and perspective, precision and insight. Obama's decisionmaking framework, as described by Cass Sunstein of University of Chicago, is thorough and non-ideological. He is "a careful and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view."
Readiness also requires a coolness under pressure, the ability to stay even-tempered, to be unflappable in a crisis. Neither Clinton nor Obama have had the authority to make decisions even remotely close to those within the power of the president. That is a distinction reserved to only 41 people since George Washington, one of the many reasons to discount a candidate's claims to experience.
But Obama's temperament on the campaign trail does reveal, to some extent, how he responds to pressure. Without exception, Obama has exhibited a calmness, an assured self-confidence that falls well short of arrogance. He is resolute and measured whether winning or losing, and has stayed emotionally intact throughout. If the campaign is a yard-stick for the presidency, Obama is ready.
Armed with a knowledge base, strong instincts, a questioning spirit, and an even demeanor, a president still cannot be ready without judgment. A president must have the ability to gather all that is needed to make a decision. But ultimately, they must make the right one. There can simply be no better metric for judging a presidency. To date, Obama has displayed an almost prophetic judgment.
He was right on the Iraq war in 2002. His judgment was based on a working understanding of Middle East geopolitics, as well as non-ideological instincts and the willingness to ask pointed questions. If there are weapons of mass destruction, but we don't know where they are, what will happen to them when we destroy the government that controls them? Iraq and Iran have balanced each other's power in the region. Will Iran's strength and influence expand when we create a power vacuum? What happens after we gain control of the country? Is there any way to avoid an occupation?
His questions received answers that solidified his opposition.
He has shown similar foresight in other global policy decisions. He questioned whether the U.S. relationship with Pervez Musharraf was the most effective means of dealing with Pakistan. Months later, his concerns have been validated as the U.S. finds itself on the wrong side of a Democratic revolution. He spoke of the need to target senior al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, even without Musharraf's approval. Recently, the U.S. succeeded at doing just that, taking out the third-highest ranking al Qaeda official. He was right to question the Bush administration's saber-rattling toward Iran, once again vindicated by a National Intelligence Estimate that found Bush's case to be far overstated. He has proven, time and again, that his global worldview is sound and sophisticated, and that he has the tools to make the right decisions. In terms of judgment, Obama is clearly ready.
The readiness debate will no doubt continue. But from any honest perspective, the answer to Hillary Clinton's threshold question is clear. Can Barack Obama be an effective commander in chief?
Yes he can.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hillary;
Ready on day one!
Pissed off on day two!
Out of control on day three!
Barack
Ready on day one!
America prospers and is moral again on day two!
The world at peace on day three!
Thank you for an excellent argument. I'd add a positive and a negative point on the 'experience question'.
Senator Obama's experience is extraordinary and uniquely qualifies him. I'd recommend 'Dreams of my Father' to anyone who hasn't read it for a detailed story of his experience. Imagine a president who has grown up in a poor, single parent household; experienced first hand the challenges of third world development and corruption following a bloody coup in Indonesia as a child; experienced the problems of poverty and disenfranchisement as a grass roots organizer in Chicago. His autobiography is also open and honest about mistakes and false starts along the way. And most importantly, it reveals someone who has struggled through these challenges to gain a clear sense of his own identity and purpose.
I think it is this kind of experience that gives us a potential commander in chief who can understand the consequences of his actions and decisions on ordinary people here and around the world.
In contrast, we have Senator Clinton's '35 years of experience' -- which certainly does include some real contributions with the Children's Defense Fund and elsewhere. But if she is to claim credit for all of those years -- including her years with the Rose Law firm and time as First Lady -- she should also acknowledge her mistakes and the failings of the previous Clinton administration:
>> Failure to deliver any meaningful health care reform in spite of a clear electoral mandate. A process that generated lawsuits for its secrecy and destined more than 40 million people to at least 16 years without health insurance.
>> Loss of Democratic control of Congress just two years after a presidential victory leading to a quagmire of the politics of personal destruction and no action on important issues of education reform, tax reform, job protection etc that set the stage for the debacle of W. Bush.
>> Standing idly by in the face of UN appeals for US support in preventing the Rwandan genocide that cost the lives of 850,000 people because intervening could be politically unpopular.
It would be possible to go on.... and more detail could be added if the Clinton's released Hillary's White House papers and their tax returns.
Let's turn the page.
you lost me at "an assured self-confidence that falls well short of arrogance."
His arrogance has been a defining hallmark of his campaign.
Excuse me?????? Arrogance is for Hillary Clinton in the #2 position offering the Vice President slot to the #1 position candidate, Barack Obama, after consistently spouting off that "he was not ready" to serve as president! Her lies are coming through loud and clear. She cannot change reality at will and believe it or not, she's more than losing appeal among all voters except the republicans who want to keep the fight going.
Don't let yourself get upset. Hillary's stategy has consistently been to accuse her opponents of her own worst faults. She's happy with the mud-slinging and truth be damned. How does the old quote go? Don't get into a mud-sling contest with pig: you both get dirty, and the pig likes it.
His arrogance? Do you read or watch TV? Do you lead a very sheltered life? She is the most arrogant of the two, hands down.
Kudos for a super post. Barack Obama continues to amaze me with the wisdom of his judgement.
The same cannot be said about his opponent . There is just something hopelessly amiss with Mrs. Clinton's judgement. All her attempts in trying to smear Sen.Obama are like boomerangs - they come right back to her with a bang and then she can only whine ",,,,,, look what he did to me, I'm gonna tell my husband,,,,,," Pityfull and discusting.
I see a lot of arrogance, but I could be over-sensitive to that. He has become, to me, just another "boy's club" candidate.
The real change would be, to me, in breaking that mold.
I see the same arrogance in most of the CEOs I worked with in my career, in most of the male politicians I've followed in life.
Sorry.....but Obama doesn't inspire any confidence in me in his Change message.
He lost me on that one.
oh yeah, the black liberal is really part of the "boys club" of washington politics. hillary clinton is more part of that boys club than barack obama is.
I see a lot of this kind of thinking in the blogosphere and elsewhere. It's not just skeptical, it's actually kind of hopeless. People need to realize the massive task it is going to be to change our government. Obama isn't saying he'll do it alone, he's telling us WE have to do it. He has the smarts of a grassroots organizer and he knows that righting our ship vis a vis the Constitutional, to take one example, will absolutely require a people's revolution in the most positive sense of that phrase. Now I voted for Kucinich (in NH), who in my book really tells it like it is, and really challenges the status quo. But let's face reality: you need to get elected FIRST before you can go changing things. Kucinich was and is too polarizing to get elected in our current system of media-driven elections. So there is a very important level at which whoever gets to be president will have to PLAY THAT GAME in order to get even close to the Oval Office. Obama has a tight-rope to walk in that regard, but note that his change message is resonating (because it;s what WE feel, NOT what HE is imaging FOR US), and many of us (millions, in fact) feel he has the best chance of doing that. Is he going to be a perfect president? Of course not, but he will get us going on a different track as a country.
Looks like Spitzer (a fervent endorser of HRC) is going down in a prostitution scandal.
How apropos, guess there was a lot more in common with the Clintons than we would've guessed.
Experience is only half of the equation. It really only matters if that experience brings sound judgement. And in MY judgement, McCain and Hillary do not pass muster in the judgement side of things. With both of them we'll have endless wars and, as a result, less security.
Agreed. People neglect to emphasize that experience is not an exhaustive term, after all, HRC has shown that you can have lots of experience and still keep screwing up. Obama has good experience, HillBilly and McBomb have bad experience. America needs good experience, which is why America needs Obama. And besides, he's brilliant. That is a real change from the chimp and company (HRC and McBomb included).
Clinton still has a very clear path to the nomination. It is called the popular vote. Also know as the will of the people.
A new poll out from Rasmussen today asys 57% of the public believes that if the primaries finish with one candidate ahead in delegates and the other ahead in the popular vote, the nomination should go to the candidate who leads the popular vote.
Go figure, paying attentio the the voice of the voters. what a novel idea.
You need to re-check your figures...
Obama is ahead on popular vote but not by an insurmountable margin. It really is possible--not probable but possible--that Hillary could win the popular vote.
This is why many Obama-supporters increasingly don't talk so much about how the nomination should go to the candidate with the *most votes* but the most *delegates*. It's honestly an important distinction for Obama-supporters to make because of the possibility that Hillary could end up being the candidate with the most votes.
Uhhhh, maybe you haven't seen, read or heard...Hillary Clinton isn't winning the popular vote either. The only thing that I have heard even remotely close to her having a winning campaign so far is "She has won the most Electoral College votes." You know those votes that robbed Al Gore of his Presidency?
Right now in the popular vote field Sen.Obama has 1.000.000 more votes than Sen.Clinton
Except that, that's not how it works, unless you want to change the system. Changing it now would be tantamount to cheating.
Obama's ahaead in the popular vote, states won, and delegates won.
Repeat after me and get used to saying it: "Barack was right."
Why doesn't Hillary ask McCain to be her VP since she believes he's more qualified than Barack to be Commander-In-Chief?
BTW Hillary did NOT have success in Texas as you reported. She won fewer delegates than Barack counting both the primary and caucus.
and come november, just how many sates do you think will be holding an extra caucus in the evening after the polls close to allow Obama to gain the lead on McCain?
hopefully enough to beat McBomb.
Hardy har har. See the SurveyUSA results:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
Its not just readiness. It is judgment. To get there, Obama needs to move beyond 2002, reaching both into the past and into the future.He needs to reintroduce himself. He needs to strike with optimism and emotion right at the core of HRC's support - women and men of his own mother's generation. In short, Obama has to make this personal, as a father of two daughters, a husband, and the son of a single mother and loving grandparents. This round, he must dwell on his upbringing under the tutelage of his single mother and grandparents, the values he learned from them and how this very middling family dominated by mothers from the middle of American got him to Harvard. He needs to talk about Michelle and his daughters - putting himself between the mothers who raised him and the mother with whom he is raising his own daughters. Obama needs to build an emotional bond with women of Hillary's generation by identifying with their struggles - as working class single mothers - in ways that paint a stark contrast with HRC's life of privilege. Then he can pivot and build a bond with the working men by emphasizing his grandfather's influence on him and his own role as the father of two young daughters.
In short, he needs to speak to the struggle and pain in his family in real and meaningful ways to reintroduce himself to Pennsylvania and sideline the anger and lies.
Hillary's experience trope is empty. It's only legitimate function at this point has been to underscore the total vacuity of our press corps. Can't they actually do a little digging here? Parroting Clinton talking points is not reporting.
In reality, Hillary Clinton is the Yoko Ono of Democratic politics. Marrying a Beatle does not make you a Beatle.
LOL Yoko!
Obama if he would take the initiative, he can define what Experience is, as they are using it as a nebulous definition. He could try to use experience and re-frame it so that he can connect to the poorer democrats by saying I grew up as a poor kid, and fell into the pitfalls of being poor, a product of a single mother. Another and I think this would go for the Clinton Juggular, is that he could make the argument that Clinton is denying him the American Dream. He has worked 10x harder than her, he's out performed her and out campained her. However she is trying to take it away in a un-American fassion, by lying and other back office methods. This would do 2 things without being negative it would shunt all her attacks as being un-american, and second it would further re-inforce her as a negative un american person.
Even if I knew nothing about Hillary prior to her campaign, I wouldn't vote for after seeing how she's conducted herself during the campaign. She's shown herself to be paranoid, secretive, inconsistent, a lousy manager, petty, childish, and extremely arrogant. Those are not the qualities that make a good President. They're not even the qualities that make a good Senator. New York should be embarrassed for ever electing her.
My Republican Lurkers: The democrats are just TOO MESSED UP.
Hillary Clinton is NOT A FIGHTER..SHE’S A BULLY!! She would SAY & DO ANYTHING TO GET WHAT SHE WANTS. She's soo full of herself, stoop soo low as to make Obama less qualified than the Republican nominee , calling him a fairy tale, maybe a muslim, maybe a drug dealer, going around telling people to fear him, equate him to Ken Starr for crying out loud and after that she has THE ARROGANCE to imply she would consider him to be her running mate when he’s the one with more delegates, more states won, more votes. Now, that's LOW even for republicans. The Clintons would rather see their party torn apart, than having somebody else be the nominee. She has made Obama's supporters so disgusted & appalled that the thought of voting for her on any ticket would make them hurl!!! REPUBLICANS SHOULD KEEP THIS GOING, The longer the Clintons talk, the more repulsive they become, they JUST CAN’T HELP THEMSELVES.
My republican friends, WITH OUR CANDIDATE ALREADY SELECTED, LET'S MAKE SURE WE VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON! This is OUR GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY. She has screwed up her party so much, there's no way most of those new enthusiastic Obama’s supporters would vote for her come general election, those Obama republicans certainly won't, majority of independents may consider McCain but CAN’T STAND Clinton. There's NOTHING MORE ENERGIZING FOR US THAN TO VOTE AGAINST HER IN NOVEMBER (talking about turning the table to our side) She's done a PERFECT job FOR The Republican Party, LET'S REPAY HER “KINDNESS” & GIVE HER WHAT SHE WANTS. Obama's movement will be GONE (Thanks to her), and WE'LL BE THE ONE REAPING THE BENEFIT. WE WILL HAVE A MOVEMENT VOTING AGAINST HILLARY IN GENERAL ELECTION. You gotta stomach it republicans, if you’re in PA you have until March 24 to register as democrat & vote for Hillary. The outcome will so worth the sacrifice.
We should NEVER let democrats win the White House & Hillary can help us do it, SHE ALREADY HAVE, WE JUST NEED TO FINISH IT! Even after George Bush screwing up, Billary are helping us claim VICTORY in 2009. There's still HOPE for us afterall. Ooh the IRONY is just too much. One DEMOCRAT is A MONSTER and the OTHER is A LOOSER, Thanks to the Monster! Their ONLY HOPE candidate is crushed by his party MONSTER and giving US the HOPE instead. PERFECT!
THANK GOD FOR MCCAIN…, he looks BETTER & BETTER BY THE DAY! My fellow republicans let's MAKE SURE WE VOTE FOR HILLARY. This is WAY…TOO EASY to keep the White House. NO WONDER DEMOCRATS NEVER WIN. Hillary has given us OBAMA on a SILVER PLATER, & SHE WILL BE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK when SHE'S THE NOMINEE. EITHER WAY, REPUBLICAN WILL WIN! HOW BEAUTIFUL IS THAT!
Please stop shouting. I basically agree with you, but there is no need to shout. Everybody can see what a creep she is. We're not a bunch of cow republicans after all.
Loading comments…
Related Blog Posts
|
||
Posted March 10, 2008 | 08:57 AM (EST)