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.
Loading comments…
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
I do not understand why Obama doesn't repudiate this by discussing the issues. One aspect of this difference is that readiness is a trait that glows from within. It simply shows, through mastery of the issues, facts, solutions already thought through. People sense that in Hillary's discussions. It has nothing to do with her White House First Lady years. Doesn't really matter where she got this, but it's clear.......somewhere along the line, Hillary did get ready.
Obama can, if he wishes, do the same by really discussing the problems that face Americans and talking about HIS solutions.
I'll vote Republican for the first time in 20 years if Clinton steals the nomination. I, and a lot of other people, believe in rewarding people based on merit... not who they were married to. America is a Democracy - not a Monarchy. Clinton will lose by more than 10 points in the general should she run... mark my words.
so you like the way the country is being run??? you're the perfect example of an UNINFORMED voter. adn hillary won't STEAL anything here. GROW UP!!! there is a lot at stake here if republicans win.
I am an incredibly informed voter, and will vote for McCain instead of Hillary. Why not? HRC has proven that she is willing to stomp on the dead body of the party if necessary to win. She has no honor or loyalty, has proven to be dishonest and (IMHO) racist. I do not believe she will get us out of Iraq, and she is as owned by corporations as GWB ever was. (I know I will get trashed for calling her campaing racist, but if it walks like a duck...)
Do you sincerely believe she will give up the immoral amount of power GWB has stolen for the executive branch? Hillary, give up power? You have got to be kidding!
If Hillary doesn't want people to vote for a republican, she should stop running a republican style campaign.
All on point Dylan. Thanks for a truthful, sane response to this readiness question.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Truth_Hurts/
Mr. Loewe:
Given everything you have said, Firing Samantha Powers, essentially on the orders of the Hillary campaign, could prove to be a very costly mistake.
Obama caved on this one very quickly and he showed an astonishing lack of backbone.
What he should have done was accept Ms. Powers apology to him and his campaign. He should have stood up for her. In explaning how she could have made that error in judgement, he could have called attention to the Clinton campaigns more sleazy actions:
- That the muslim, not knowing the pledge of allegiance, email was put out by Clinton's Iowa co-chair.
- That it was the Clinton campaign that contacted the Canadian Prime-Minister re Nafta.
- that the red phone campaign was a George Bush tactic that real democrats should be embarrassed to use.
He could have pointed out that Howard Wolfson probably regrets his Ken Starr comment and that Hillary was right to keep him on the campaign. (Wolfsohn obviously doesn't, but it would have spawned a lot of embarrassing questions back to the Clinton campaign).
More importantly he could have brought up the fact that he wouldn't treat his staff the way the Clinton's treated Lanie Guinear, Jocyln Elders, and a host of others. New Politics involves loyalty, trust and (yes) forgiveness; not treating people like political baggage, as the Clintons are famous for.
It would have been a big win for him and made Hillary look small and petty. But he didn't do it. He went gutless and now people are focussing on his strength, the issue that is the most difficult and dangerous for him.
Obama is obviously the superior candidate. The way that the Clintons have been acting is a daily reminder of how woefully lacking they are in comparison to him.
With the time Obama has to campaign in Pennsylvania, he should be able to show he's the one temperamentally and politically qualified to make the decisions a President makes. He should be able to draw a line in the sand against the Clinton attacks and show how they illustrate Hillary is not in control even of her own campaign.
The closet racists and Republicans who have voted for Hillary on orders from Limbaugh and others may buy the idea that she is ready, but they buy it because they know she's ready to be beaten.
Those uncritical voters who are easily swayed by the rank emotional appeals smeared around in Texas may marginally turn out for Hillary, but many of them are likely McCain voters.
Superdelegates have to save us from the debacle, the train wreck, the circus that the Clinton campaign has been and could be if they have their way with us.
Dylan, another awesome post. One of the problems of the last few years is that we continue to accept the underlying premises that those with ulterior motives put in front of us. The most horrifying example of this came along in 2002 when Bush and Cheney said "They've got WMD and they are going to use them against us. If we don't invade, you can expect to see a mushroom cloud overhead." There were two underlying assertions that the majority of Americans were too afraid to question then. Did Iraq have WMD? And if so, what reason did we have to believe that those weapons would be used against us?" Our willingness to accept those assertions had disastrous consequences in 2002 and 2003.
Now it's we need a proven leader with more experience answering the phone in the middle of the night (presumably all pantsuited and ready to rumble). Before we accept this framework, we all need to stop and ask why we are privleging Hillary Clinton's years as a corporate lawyer and first lady over the experiences that Barack Obama had organizing poor and working class Americans, serving as a law professor (reflecting on the law and how it impacts ordinary Americans), and working as a state legislator (getting an opportunity to see the impact on the states of decisions made at the federal level).
Also although we may comfort ourselves by believing otherwise, no one comes to the office of the president with the relevant "experience" because the job is like no other, particularly when it comes to decisions about national security. As George Bush told us, the president is the ultimate decider, and no one can possibly understand that experience until they've been there. So our job as voters has to be to use all of the information available to us to pick the candidate that seems best suited to the job. And commercials that falsely imply one of the candidates has more experience picking up the phone at 3 am to keep the nation safe should only serve to warn us that one of the campaigns is trying to get us to make that decision based on fear rather than reason.
As a firm Hillary supporter, I can suggest that you listen to some of the debates. I saw in NH that Hillary was, by far, more knowledgeable about the issues, more in command of facts, and definitely had thought out solutions already. I was also listening to Obama, and I felt he fumbled because he isn't.
Readiness isn't about simple resume stuff, in my opinion. It's about where your focus has been and what you've been studying and thinking about and how you have used your experiences to learn. To illustrate: I believe a candidate could convince me of readiness for the presidency if they show:
Political agility in building coalitions......They both are equal in that regard, obviously.
Political agility in selling messages.......I think Obama has an edge there
Proven ability to work bi-partisanship......Clinton has the upper hand here
Ability to know what the issues are in various parts of the country and present effective solutions that are realistic........I think Clinton has the edge here
Respect from the International Community......Clinton has a slight edge, but Obama is also very popular, which is a way to build that bridge quickly
Respect from Congress........I think Clinton and Obama may be even in this. She definitely commands respect. He may command "likeability" more.
Ability to deliver on tough programs that are NOT necessarily easy sells.......Clinton wins. Obama has avoided the hard fights.
Ability to keep the country focused on positive gains; i.e., motivational stuff. Obama wins that one hands down, although Hillary obviously knows how to keep the focus on accomplishments.
I'm rather tired of the pundits just taking the talking points of BOTH campaigns and letting them spin the picture.
Personally, I think it adds up to the reality that HIllary is more ready. Whether that trumps "Change," I dunno.
That is the reason this race is so close. Her constinuency is the group most being hit hard by the economy. They couldn't care less about fuzzy-wuzzy change. They want real work being done. (So do I, but I want that because I saw 8 years just wasted.)
His constinuency doesn't seem to be as concerned about that and wants more motivational? I'm not sure about that one.
And voters have been tossing this around since nearly day 1, which is why even now there is an usually high number of "undecided" up until the days before they vote.
I have watched the debates and what I saw was the following: Barack Obama more willing to engage our enemies in discussion and even negotiation and Hillary Clinton refusing to admit that her vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq was deeply flawed (based on what was knowable at the time). I saw Hillary Clinton back tracking from her record on NAFTA. I also saw Hillary Clinton refusing more than once to hand over basic financial documents that the Democratic voters needed to vet her for viability in the general elections. I did see Hillary Clinton putting out a better plan on health care where I believe that mandates are going to be necessary. However, for me this is more than offset by the fact that she enabled a war that is going to cost us at least $2 trillion before it's all over (particularly when we throw in the longterm health costs of thousands of veterans who have sustained physical and mental injuries), making it very difficult to find the resources to get anything else done. That is part of the reason that I view that vote to put a loaded gun in George Bush's hands as such an important factor in my choice for president. Going to war always has serious consequences in terms of lives lost and destroyed, resources wasted on destruction rather than on building, image abroad etc. In my opinion, Hillary Clinton demonstrated bad judgement on a critical matter when she authorized Bush's war. Further she has demonstrated the inability to learn from her mistake both by her continued refusal to admit her error and by her recent vote to categorize the entire Iranian army as a terrorist entity (which George Bush might easily regard as permission to attack in his self-declared war against terror),
As for what you say about the group most hard hit by the economy backing Clinton. Just one problem with that assertion. By any objective standard, African Americans are the group most hard hit by the shrinking economy, and they are solidly putting their backing behind Obama. It pisses me off how so many Democrats tend not to include Blacks in their analysis of this election (or just write them off as reflexively giving their votes to Obama) when I know that this part of the Democratic base is critical to the hopes of the Democrats in November (no matter who the candidate is).
Finally, nowhere in your response do I see anything that gives Hillary Clinton the advantage in being better prepared to answer the phone at 3 am.
I don't know what Hillary trumps. But I know she doesn't trump Barack's delegate count.
Absolutely right. By judgment, temperament, knowledge, intellect and a grounding in the right values and principles, Obama meets the threshold.
It's Hillary who doesn't. She showed the wrong judgment in 2002 and didn't even read the NIE. And as we've seen, she's been resume-padding on Northern Ireland, Kosovo and even Beijing, where "all she did was give a speech" -- the exact same criterion she's bashing Obama for.
How bizarre that the standard she has tried to set to distinguish her from Obama not only doesn't do that in the way she wants -- it also undermines her case if she manages to win the nomination and go against McCain in the general.
Compassionate and thoughtful. Great qualities for leadership. Who'd a thunk it!
Naw, elect another person with a Cro-Magnin view of the universe and act surprised later.
Why is no one among the so-called party elders not able to stand up to the bitch and tell her to exit the race? Why is no one willing to tell her crooked husband and the corrupt hung-ons that the party is in jeopardy of distengrating? Why is the Democratic party dominated by cowards and crooks?
While I agree that it would be a good idea for someone amongst the party elders to tell Clinton that bashing Obama (in particular her comments re: the CiC "threshold") is damaging, can we please not call her a "bitch"?
That's not helpful to anyone....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
