The Problem With Obama

There are a number of weaknesses in the Obama candidacy that make his effort seem both inadequate and even perilous for the Democratic Party and ultimately for the country.

First is the effort by the candidate to portray himself foremost as a conciliator. What Democrats want today is a fighter, not simply a mediator. They have suffered enough from the vicious blows of President Bush and the Republicans. What the party needs is a nominee who will take the battle directly to the opposition. Come the fall contest, a candidacy of "friendly persuasion" will be swiftboated into oblivion.

In addition, Senator Obama claims to be setting forth new ideas and fresh thinking. Yet the most startling fact today is that he is running to the right of the other leading Democratic contender, Senator Hillary Clinton. For example, Obama's health care plan does not cover all Americans while Clinton's plan does. Obama also insists on focusing his concerns on Social Security, which does not need fixing rather than Medicare, which does.

Then Mr. Obama has depicted himself as a global strategist with great instincts on international issues as shown by his opposition to the Iraq war. Yet he is the same individual who said in July 2004 that, had he been in the Senate (rather than at the time in the Illinois legislature), he wasn't sure how he would have voted on the resolution on Iraq; and, once in the Senate, he chaired a subcommittee on Europe and never held a hearing (except on two ambassadorial nominations) and never made any visits to Europe except for a brief flyover stop in London; and finally during one of the presidential debates, he said he would invade Pakistan to nab Osama Bin Laden without first getting the permission of the Pakistani government -- a direct violation of international law. This is a vapid sort of multilateralism.

He has also insisted that he is a strong, activist leader; yet, according to a recent article in The New York Times, he ducked dozens of important votes in the Illinois legislature by voting "present." Senator Obama is a bold rhetorician but immature in action. On this entire checklist, his stances contrast directly with those of Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton has proven to be the feistier and more informed leader, a serious internationalist, a talented legislator and more truly the embodiment of the party's historic FDR/JFK traditions. The choice between the two seems to me one between an individual who can govern immediately and one who still needs years more of grooming before he is ready.

Comments

[BlueBoomer]

This was a very well-thought out and presented post, EXCEPT for the assumption that if you agreed with all of the negative points against Obama, it would naturally lead you to support Hillary Clinton.

WRONG...VERY WRONG.

Hillary Clinton is a master of the BushCo tactic of: "it's true because I say it is, and because I say it over and over again", (just as Obama does, btw). In her case, it's regarding her experience, or what is rather her pseudo experience.

Pseudo experience would be acceptable if the mess we are being left by BushCo were a pseudo mess. But it's NOT.

THE PROBLEMS FACING THE NEXT POTUS ARE REAL, AND REAL DEDICATION, EXPERIENCE, AND PROVEN SUCCDESSFUL ACHIEVEMENTS are what will be needed to combat and correct them.

THAT set of assumptions, Mr. S., leads logically to supporting JOE BIDEN for POTUS.

JOE BIDEN's got the qualifications and the chops to get the job done...FOR REAL.

(Add Richardson for VP, Dodd for Senate Majority Leader, Kucinich for Speaker of the House, and Edwards or Obama for AG and we'd REALLY see the country, our honor, and the constitution resurrected from the ashes that BushCo will leave in its wake...AND, I could actually stop being pissed off/depressed about this country all the time!)

From my fingertips to God's ear (or the ears of a whole lot of Iowans!...whichever works best!)

[WillBFair]

I've said it before; I'll say it again. Obama is an academic, and they speak too much in abstractions. I want a president who can articulate policy in precise terms. And the Clintons have by far the best governing record I've seen. So that's it. Game over.

[mustkilltreemake2x4]

I think Obama's momentum was stopped cold from the Clinton attacks. i.e. cocaine-Muslim-rolling the dice. I also don't think Obama can count on students coming back to school early to caucus for him. This is not to say I think Clinton will take Iowa.

[JacktheBlogger]

So in other words you are saying that voting for Obama would be a "roll of the dice?"

[Orikinla]

Can we separate the fact from the fiction?
Can any of the supporters of Barack Obama show us the evidence of his competence?

[roncraw]

I keep hearing that Obama voted 4000 times while in the state senate.But only voted present on a small number of issues.A majority of votes in a state senate are real important things like naming a park bench after someone. Check and you'll see it was the meaningful votes he voted present on.

[qvisions]

here is a good explanation of what Obama is trying to do

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/0336/4320/685/426473

[homovivens]

Here we go again, the ubiquitous proffering of the False Dilemma -- simplistic dichotomies, "either/or" thinking, a studied blindness to "both/and" alternatives.

Looking through the hourglass darkly, with time running out, a mixed race to the end, and Obama still poised for victory, his opponents and some outright detractors preach an ideology enshrining the Fallacy of Black and White: One can be either a conciliator or an adversarial advocate, but never both. A lie riding on the back of fear mongering.

What's most appalling is that Mr. Schlesinger soups together all the latest unsubstantiated and denigrating opinion already out there and floats it like pasta alphabets, hoping that mere repetition and rearrangement of lettered (to be read Harvard) opinion may, if lucky, translate into something resembling fact.

I'll go with Ted Sorenson (Kennedy speech writer), David Brooks (NYT), and Clive Crook (Financial Times), to name a diverse few, who un-color-blindly see a big green light for Obama. That's a go!

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Full Stop: OBAMA 2008

[ConcernAmerican]

Strange as it may seem, majority of voters based their votes on issues, who among the candidates for nomination can deliver it to them. Voters from age 45 and up focuses on issues that young adults may not have given much thought.

Obama needs more maturity, you can see his immaturity during debates, this is like a game to him, an experiment. As his wife already stated in MSNBC a few months they don't expect to win this race. Therefor, listening to the woman who shares his bed, bore his children, seriousness is lacking from his side. This is a great experiment as far as Obama is concern.

I'm not voting for Obama, Hillary Clinto has my vote. Although I like Edwards, he doesn't get my vote, he can't even win his own state, that says a lot about him.

[JonathanDS2U]

Every presidential election the Democratic Party seems to come back to the same question: Who possesses sublime oneness with the knowledge that we're all part of some Woody Allen Take The Money And Run chain gang, unable to draw one breath without taking the whole group with us. Whose experience has properly taught him to stay in perfect lockstep with everybody else to avoid stepping into the wrong kind of crap.

I'm idealistic enough to want to cut some slack for someone with Obama's savvy and intentions.

[middleoftheroad]

You are so fooling yourself if you think that the GOP establishment will work with Hillary. Most Dems I know (near Philly) don't even like her! I can't believe that the Dems may give another four years to a Clinton...That means 32 years at least of a Bush or Clinton in the White House (at least)...It means the Clintons will have held the power over the DNC for a good 15-20 years, and that the blood sport of politics will enter a sick level. Aren't we just tired of the same Bush/Clinton drama? Don't we all just want to see a NEW America? Hillary getting the nom will be the best present Hannity could have asked for.
Obama 08.

[Independent_voter]

Building a bridge to the past is not the answer Schlesinger.

[suki21693]

Look at where experience has gotten us so far.

What is it they say about prison, it just teaches them to be better criminals?
Years spent in politics seem to teach about the same.

[Nutcase]

Only the friends of Clinton and Obama and the MSM see the choice as being between those two.

Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum. Republican-Lite and Hillary-Lite. These are the two most likely to lose.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Hey, good news! there are more than two candidates running for the democratic nomination. and if experience is what you're looking for and not just using it as an excuse to trash Obama, Hillary isn't the only other choice. In fact, I don't even see that she's a logical choice. And I must say, this editorial doesn't do much to sell Hillary, as much as unsell Obama. Not convincing. I've got to wonder whether there are any columnnists or bloggers out there who support a candidate who isn't among the "top tier". Or even know there's anyone else running. for once we've got some good choices here and the most decent, hardworking and experienced candidates are getting no press, no play. What the heck is that about? Seems like the dems are cutting off their noses to spite their faces... again.

[genmalia]

I have to say, I have a serious problem with Democrats criticizing Obama for wanting to work with Republicans. It's true, the Republicans have been excellent at uniting to further the GOP cause over the last decade. They can even unite to stonewall Democrats in charge against legislation to benefit Americans. It is petty and admonishable.

Now Democrats want to employ the same tactics against Republicans. It's school-yard tactics such as this which make me ashamed of some in my party. Not only are Democrats willing to stoop to the base level of forcing their agenda through, but they are going to do it against the party's fundamental premise of progress, which is worse than what Republicans have been doing. Divisiveness in politics is part of what has made this country come to a screeching halt.

Like it or not, there are others who do not have the same views as you...even in your own party (obviously). There is no such thing as a perfect candidate or President, but I have no respect for anyone who will claim to work for progress, yet do nothing to embody that statement.

Step up Democrats, now is NOT the time to prove who can beat down the other party. That makes America foolish and weak and bullish. A leader is one who can accept opposing viewpoints, not just tolerate them. And a leader for this country is one who can recognize that this country is not one party or another but full of nuanced citizens who don't care what party you belong to, but what kind of stability there is in their life.

[bach]

Don't you get it? The choice between the two seems to be between a woman and anybody else.

[mcostello]

while I don't love Obama, I disagree with two of your points:
Hillary's health plan is a hoax, designed to sound good to the populace while wink-wink nudge-nudging the insurance companies that they will still be in the game. Obama's, while not any better, at least doesn't make insincere promises.
Also, you claim to speak for democrats saying that they want a "fighter", but Obama is only a consiliator. Ask the Hillary campaign if Obama is a fighter. It seems that Hillary has had to get her bruised rump off the mat a few times due to Obama.

[audiophileguy]

Mr. Schlesinger's main point appears to be: Hillary is qualified to lead immediately because Obama is not. Really, really impressive post.

[TheLastPenguin]

Obama for President!

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Hey, good news! there are more than two candidates running for the democratic nomination. and if experience is what you're looking for and not just using it as an excuse to trash Obama, Hillary isn't the only other choice. In fact, I don't even see that she's a logical choice. And I must say, this editorial doesn't do much to sell Hillary, as much as unsell Obama. Not convincing. I've got to wonder whether there are any columnnists or bloggers out there who support a candidate who isn't among the "top tier". Or even know there's anyone else running. for once we've got some good choices here and the most decent, hardworking and experienced candidates are getting no press, no play. What the heck is that about? Seems like the dems are cutting off their noses to spite their faces... again.

[lentinelia]

Obama needs "years of grooming"?
What is he - a horse?

[tjmax116]

Why hasn't the press covered Edwards, the only agent for change.

[Rosey1739]

There is no true problem with Obama Mr. Schlesinger and I think you already know this. The present votes in the IL senate were small in proportion to the total number. Beyond that, many were strategic were he was asked to on behalf of the IL democratic senators. Get your facts straight Mr. Schlesinger! Hillary (even with all her experience) made her vote Yes to send troops to Iraq! If your going to be anti-Obama...find some original and pertinent reasons.

[tjmax116]

This is just great.You want to take a step back in time, and go with the Clintons.The people who brought us NAFTA.