Barack, You're Nice Enough
I write this before the New Hampshire primary results are all in, but from the early morning voting tally it appears that Barack Obama will have a victory over Hillary and Edwards, and probably go on to capture the Democratic nomination. America seems to be prepared to give him the keys to the car. I know he's got the gas, but I am still not sure that he can drive, and without that knowledge, I am unprepared to become a passenger in his vehicle. If he does win the Democratic nomination, I fear that we will all of us be panning for facts and policies, knee deep in a puddle of rhetoric. Highfalutin' words are quite nice, useful in a seduction, but they are insufficient in a marriage. Yes, yes, yes, I'll vote for him against any of the twisted sisters the Republicans are offering, but I still have my questions about this Mr. Smith going to Washington.
Did I see a bit of mean spirited sarcasm coming from Barack when during the ABC debate he remarked, "Hillary, you're nice enough," his voice dropping on the enough, just enough to suggest that he finds her a middle-aged pest, a first class nuisance for daring to run against and withstand his all powerful charms? Nice enough for what? For losing what has become a beauty contest. Barack will grant her "Miss Congeniality" if she will only drop out now, taking Edwards with her, and stop speaking about the issues that interest some savvy voters: real national health insurance, the true diplomatic engagement of this country with the rest of the world, the outsourcing of jobs overseas, and a better education for America's children.
Right now I know that Barack Obama would make the best high school class president in these United States. He has the smarts, the looks, the charm, and the popularity, likes sports, and he plays well with others. But this isn't high school, or even Harvard Yard, and I think we should ask more of our Presidents. We don't. Ergo, George W. Bush. Hush, yes, I do know he won't be another Bush. He's smarter, more decent, and I think he's truly idealistic. At least I hope he is, otherwise all this talk of change and bringing people together is so much palaver. But incompetence takes many forms, and it starts with an unwillingness to articulate practical policies. Speaking in generalities is a wonderful election strategy, you become all things to all people, but it's a helluva lousy way to run a government. Having said all this, Barack may well become a great president, should he survive the Republican attack machine which is revving up, and the doubts of a few old guys like me.
A note of warning to all interested parties: As a New Yorker I caution you, "Beware of Michael Bloomberg." He has the power to convince so many that a billionaire frog is really a genial prince by using those billions to bombard the electorate. He has been a decent enough mayor and New York looks pretty good and feels good these days -- despite some hideous architectural additions and the pricing out of the middle class through astronomical rentals -- but he is arrogant, willful, and secretive, just what we don't need more of these days. He cannot become president, but he can become the new Nader, the spoiler who brings the presidency by default to a McCain with his hundred year occupation of Iraq.
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
A thinly veiled Hillary support piece. Do you really think Hillary will hit the ground running? So many people in this country HATE this woman and her bubba, rightly or wrongly, that the opposition, fired up with the rhetoric of Limbaugh and others, will be throwing everything including the kitchen sink at her BEFORE day one. When she gets inside the Whitehouse you will see a TRUE bunker mentality. It doesn't really matter whether Clinton has a great plan or not since we will all be mired in another four years of intense bickering beginning months before the inauguration.
The Republican smear machine will go after Obama too, absolutley, but his form of idealism and ability to inspire has a chance to rise above the stink. His plan for Day 1? Give me a break. This isn't a scripted friggin' football game. I prefer a guy with a general game plan that can think on his feet and rally the team.
The angst of Sherman's post is from having to use the “if” word, doubtless. But nonetheless it’s still not too late ... maybe Hillary will still be able to get the flag burning amendment through when she goes back to the senate. Who knows .... In any case, I think I like most people here, aside from the paid and not so paid shills, are growing weary of having to suffer the pretense of going out to the net and bringing back information so as to de-construct shill, innuendo, misrepresentations, and out and out lies.
You know stuff like acts passed, early activist history, stuff like plans from Obama’s website, and such like.
Almost as much as we are of shills pretending it doesn’t exist.
Here is yet another piece about the horse race. If you really wanted this election to have less of a "high school" feel to it, perhaps you could start by focusing on more substantive comparisons between the candidates. Our presidential elections have devolved into "popularity contests" precisely because all political coverage of the race is primarily focused on the "horse race".
I also find it interesting that you raise the specter of the Prince of Evil himself: Ralph Nader - the man who is singlehandedly responsible for the last 7 years of bush policies. Think of where we could be as a country today if he never existed: we wouldn't have to deal with the Freedom of Information Act, OSHA, the Clean Air Act, the EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, ad nauseam. The man is clearly a menace to the American society and he must be stopped at all costs. Nader has clearly placed "moles" on the Supreme Court, which he pressured to stop the Florida recount and throw the election to bush in 2000.
(BTW, I didn't vote for Nader, but 99% of the people who did would have stayed home in 2000 if Nader hadn't ran. Nader had absolutely nothing to do with the way the DLC ran Gore's campaign, or the Supreme Court's decision to award the presidency to idiot boy. The man is an American Hero - leave him alone.)
Obama clearly isn't a "details" person.
If it's all about persona, then it should obviously be Obama and Huckabee. But I think that would guarantee a pretty lousy presidency either way.
Clinton is clearly the best qualified from the Democrats. She sees the big picture, but she sees all the details, too. She would make a far better President than Obama.
Let's face it, the last two times we changed Presidents, we got hit with a terrorist attack within the first 6 months. Al Qaeda knows that these transition periods are when we are most vulnerable, and least likely to mount an effective response. The last thing we need is an Obama or a Huckabee sitting then asking "Al Qaeda who?"
Something to remember: after being president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama taught constitutional law at one of the best law schools in the country for ten years. This sounds like an ideal background for taking an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Especially after eight years of attacks on that constitution.
This post is absolutly correct. Can one of the Obamma supporters tell me what his 1st day plan is? What about 5 day, or even 10 day plan. The presidancy requires thought out planning, if Barack does not "hit the ground running" on his first day, he will squander what popularity he has. Last thing we need is for him not to live up to his promises and thereby igniting a Republican hope for 2010. I may not like Clinton all the time, but at least she would go in knowing what to do. And while here policies would not be completly progressive, one has to realize that this country isn't completly progressive.
The job quite often makes the person. Or breaks, in the case of Bush- remember he was the "good ole boy at the bar-b-q you could have a beer with"- intelligent people can figure things out. Recovering addicts like Bush only mire themselves in incompetence and cronyism.
Remember the last two billionaires that threw their hats into the ring? More like a Perot or Forbes than a Nader.
thanks for the post. as an undecided voter, i'm still reading policy papers to make up my mind, but i do find it really alarming that most people who have voted do not seem to have done the same. in fact, they have voted the same way that they voted in 2000--"with their gut." the democratic primary--and the media/blog coverage of it--has become a highschool election. i don't want a president that can make me feel good or whose campaign makes vague and meaningless promises of "change" on the one hand while taking money hand over fist from corporate interests. what is in any of obama's policy papers that will benefit the poor and the working class that he is intoxicating with promises of a new day?
Better knee deep in a puddle of rhetoric..
Than up to ones neck mired in triangulations.
Typical. Time to whine about the Democrats best hope, but you don't mention which candidate you think would be better suited... More complaining and less solutions.
Obama is surviving Clinton's attack machine, which I think is every bit as heartless as the Republican version.
Would you support Edwards? An upperclass suburban ambulance chaser? People like have caused the huge problems in healthcare and insurance by going after doctors and hospitals for millions. Who suffers? Not his clients but everyone else. Besides that, his wife calls his neighbors rabid.
Clinton? First Lady is not political experience, its P.R. experience, she has less legislative experience than Obama. And who wants Bill back in that house either. She is a power monger and her history back to her lawyering days show exactly that.
Maybe there is a second-tier candidate thats better but has less money and national popularity.
Obama may not be perfect, but who is? He is a uniter and an idealist. He is the only Democrat I would vote for at this point and if he's not in the general election, I'll vote for a Republican over any of the Democratic "twisted sisters" who represent their self interests every bit as much as those on the right, if not more so.
As those of us who payed attention in 5th grade civics class remember, the president doesn't propose legislatio
You can have the most wonderful, detailed, wonky proposals all drawn up and it will count for nothing -- not even a vague shadow of your desires -- if you lack the ability to muster the people and their representatives to support it.
And so much of the agenda is not set by what you wish to propose, but how you must react to what happens.
That's why leadership and judgement are far more important in this race than "details" and "proposals
...I do agree with you on Bloomie though. God, I can't stand him.
I just saw on BBC (of all places) how Obama beat Clinton in Iowa. No mention of Edwards (who beat her too). But of course big media (read big corp) won't even acknowledge the existance of Edwards. What if he were to win and reinstate the fairness doctrine not to mention enforcing anti-trust laws. Next thing you know the rable would be running the place and the millionares would be paying taxes.
This is an excellent post and should be a caution to all of us -- we need to learn where the candidates stand on the issues. Preaching "change and hope" is a slogan without substance.
The media has a role to play in ensuring that the candidates are vetted -- they have not done this at all. They have been hyping the negative on Hillary and they've given Obama a positive "pass".
If the media were to be judged on the basis of their journalistic performance [giving us fact checked, unbiased information that is relevant to our evaluating the candidates positions] I think most of them would be out of a job.
For example, they have collectively hyped and awarded the nomination to Obama on the basis of about about 100,000 Iowans' votes. At this rate we'd be better off hearing statements made by the candidates while the "press" remains quiet. What a nice change that would be.
I for one do not want my opportunity to have my vote count washed away by the press. The media has turned this entire campaign into horse race nonsense.
How much experience did JFK have when he was elected and what are your thoughts as to his performance as president before his assasination?? Just curious.
Hmm maybe nice enouch when she isn't spreading rumors and working w/Drudge.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
