As someone who values experience in a candidate - remember, I didn't have a problem voting for John Kerry in 2004 - please tell me why I should trust a party that nominates Barack Obama over people like Bill Richardson who are way more qualified, in a traditional sense, to do the job. What exactly, in your mind, is it that Obama brings to the table that was so much more impressive than his competition?
Let's set aside my own support for McCain for now. It's not relevant. Pretend that I'm just your average undecided voter who thinks experience is important. There are enough of those out there, after all.
And remember, the question is not "why is Obama better than McCain?" The question is "why is Obama better than Richardson, Clinton, or other more conventionally experienced options the Democrats had available to them?"
So many lefties duck on this question, as is evidenced elsewhere on this blog. I don't care what your answer is, as long as it's on point. I'm not looking to debate your answer. And you get full credit just for answering.
Thanks in advance.
Let's set aside my own support for McCain for now. It's not relevant. Pretend that I'm just your average undecided voter who thinks experience is important. There are enough of those out there, after all.
And remember, the question is not "why is Obama better than McCain?" The question is "why is Obama better than Richardson, Clinton, or other more conventionally experienced options the Democrats had available to them?"
So many lefties duck on this question, as is evidenced elsewhere on this blog. I don't care what your answer is, as long as it's on point. I'm not looking to debate your answer. And you get full credit just for answering.
Thanks in advance.
8 comments:
Honestly? If the Democratic National Committee were choosing a candidate, or if some sort of Democratic think tank could get together to appoint a candidate, I think they well may have chosen any of the people you listed.
However, the primary vote boosted Obama to the top. He doesn't have the most experience, or the most solid credentials. But, apparently, he has a certain quality that resonates with voters. The American public doesn't necessarily equate experience, or lack thereof, with attractiveness in a candidate. Speeches resonate. Commercials and tag-lines and zingers and being funny on Letterman resonate.
If the American people wanted to really know their candidates, if things like experience counted all that much, we could read the candidates' resumes and position papers and vote accordingly. As we all know, in the age of Willie Horton ads and "who would you rather have a beer with," personality and charisma (or at least perceived personality and charisma) carry the day.
I'm actually an Independent, but I've yet to vote for a Republican in a presidential general election, so I'll take a crack at the question.
I make up my mind based mostly on a candidate's priorities and charisma (assuming a minimum acceptable level of experience and competence).
Charisma should not be underrated. It not only helps candidates win elections; it helps politicians advance their agendas. Look at Arnold Schwarzeneggar. What qualifications did he have to be Governor of California? Yet, he's been a reasonably successful Governor, given the cesspool he inherited from Gray Davis and the crappy economic climate (and corresponding budget crises) of the last several years.
In 2004, the Democrats nominated the man with the best resume, given the emphasis on military matters in the middle of a war. Unfortunately, he had negative charisma; a more likeable man could have easily shed the Swift Boat slanders.
Clinton and Richardson have more extensive resumes than Obama (especially Richardson), but they lack the charisma to beat McCain in the general election. For that reason, I think the Dems made the right choice.
First of all RS, your uber-support of McCain cannot be ignored. You've been waving that flag as high as any one since 2000. No Dem (nor Rep) could ever measure up.
Second, not to recycle the TPs but if you want change, you don't send people who have been in the business forever. I originally considered Richardson but he comes with huge amounts of Clinton-like baggage. All these other folks are too bogged down in the power brokering. The power brokers' candidate was anointed in '04 and look how well that turned out for us. As a hard core McCainer, you should know the sting of that from 2000.
Experience isn't measured in quantity, it's measured in quality. And not just years in elected office but of personal content too. BO's appeal is he's walked the walk. He's put himself through school, he's had to deal with the tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, he's served his country, not in uniform, but in just a noble way fighting for the stuff that matters at home.
Let's just for argument's sake say that experience can also refer to a persons ability to relate to others. His time in elected office may not span 3 decades but as a someone who is around career electeds all the time you should know that the more time spent in office usually means the less connected to real people one becomes.
Obama is not the typical candidate. He hasn't spent his whole life around privileged, upper class people who all look the same and have the same story. With all due respect to McCain b/c I'm sure the time he spent as a POW was as excruciating an experience as any human being can endure and still survive. But he was raised the son and grandson of top Navy brass, went to a military academy, married well, which would have been enough but then went on to live the privileged life of being a member of America's most exclusive club. When was the last time he (or any of the other options, D or R) had to balance their own checkbook?
Why Obama? Because he clawed his way to where he is, which means he at least understands what it is like to be down here. He's close enough to where he came from to not be totally lost in who he has become.
And that is what we need now. Also, again sorry for the TPs, but when one guy says he's gonna keep doing what has fucked things up so bad for four more years, why would we want that sort of experience? We need someone whose gonna at least TRY something different.
I have my reasons, which I cannot prove will turn out to be right at this point anymore than anyone else can prove they will turn out to be wrong. You are right that they others are "way more qualified, in a traditional sense, to do the job." I used to support Richardson. The thing is, I only believe they are vastly more qualified on foreign policy and the reality on the ground is that foreign policy now takes a back seat to domestic policy. That's my priority, maybe not yours. So, I'm willing to hope the right advisers and strong Joint Chiefs can guide him on that stuff. I think he sets himself apart on domestic issues.
It is the "traditional sense" you talk about where I fear very little will be accomplished. Another Dem will just run to the left and unless the Senate reaches 60 Dems, they will accomplish little. Consider this passage from Obama's acceptance speech:
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.
I cannot envision any of the other Dems saying such a thing, let alone following through on it. I think, and hope, that he will truly follow through. Yeah he's super liberal and maybe in his perfect world all guns are gone or gay marriage is legalized fully by the Feds. But, I want to believe that his political smarts and practical side will trump his inner liberal self and he will actually improve our country through reasonable and rational compromise on many issues as he illustrates in that point. I think an Obama presidency will be way more willing to negotiate on domestic issues than other Dems, and in turn accomplish much more. Sure, many liberals will not always be pleased, but the country as a whole should be.
And to totally cheat and answer the question you said to not answer, I would put McCain in the same boat as the other Dems. From a neutral, nonpartisan viewpoint, I really don't see him accomplishing that much as a president... at least not in the first four years (unless he decides not to run for reelection). He will placate his hardcore right base during his presidency just as he has during this campaign, and while he maybe won't be as conservative as a Bush presidency, I don't see him accomplishing that much domestically. The same goes for those other, "traditional," Dems. Those Dems as well as McCain are not willing to turn their back on their 20% base in order to find that middle ground where 60+ % of Americans are happy. I think, hope, want to believe, etc., that Obama will just get his hands dirty and truly make some improvements on things (as opposed to bringing about some liberal utopia some of the hardcore base thinks, hopes, wants to believe, etc., will happen).
If Obama wins it will be through new demographics on a more populace message which means he doesn't need to placate some super-liberal base. If a Clinton or Richardson succeeded, or McCain succeeds, it will be due to that hardcore base, which means they will have to spend much of their time placating this polarizing minority contingent of the American populace. Just look at the Palin pick. Many of the hardcore base was on the fence (Dobson). McCain tailored his actions to placate that base, just as I expect him to in office. I believe a Clinton or Richardson ticket would do just the same. The net result is entrenching and ultimately slows true progress.
I will admit right off the bat that I am a conservative but I lean towards the moderate end of conservativism. That said, my two cents here is in regards to ordinary jill's charisma comment. I completely understand why charismatic, well dressed and well groomed candidates are seen as teh better candidates. However it is this line of thinking that has helped to elect some of our least qualified and highly disliked elected officials. Once such official that comes to mind is Ted Kennedy. I think it is safe to say that he should not be a senator. He is by no means an upstanding citizen but because of who he is and how he carries himself he has been able to keep his office. On the other hand I'm sure there are zillions of very qualified people out there who will never be elected to office because they look goofy or give worse speeches then George W Bush (who by the way is in my opinion a TERRIBLE public speaker). Charisma may sway public opinion but that is no reason for sensible, intelligent people to vote for any candidate. Obama may be able to smooth talk his way into or out of anything but that by no means makes him qualified over the likes of Richardson or any other Democratic candidate for that matter.
Thanks for listening to the ramblings of a moderate conservative college student.
Well, in the end I voted Clinton in the primary. In the Senate, Obama has not always done the right thing in my eyes, and I have several long-standing beefs with Joe Biden. However, I am quite excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency, for a couple of reasons.
One, I think Obama has more than adequately demonstrated both a solid command of the issues and fully detailed complement of policy ideas.
Two, he's run a smart campaign--he beat the unbeatable by being smarter than the smartest kids in the room. That says something about the way he'll govern, the way he might be able to get done what has generally been regarded as impossible to get done.
As a part of that, contrast similar moments with the McCain campaign. When Obama ran into trouble with Susan (?) Powers, and that guy on his VP vetting team, they were gone and never seen again. Phil Gramm is still angling for SecTreas in the McCain administration, and you get the feeling that if Jack Abramoff wasn't on day two of four years, he'd be right in the thick of it, too.
Or the veep selections, which I wrote about last week. McCain couldn't stand up to the idiot faction of his own party who turned up their noses at moderates McCain preferred, like Lieberman and Ridge. He couldn't be bothered to do more than hand Palin a questionnaire to vet her, despite five solid months of time to pick a second banana. Obama's deliberately savvy, and McCain's been haphazard. (See, for example, the giant photo of Walter Reed Middle School, instead of the Army Hospital named after the same guy that it was supposed to be.) I don't want another administration that's constantly in disarray. Obama has his shit together, and that counts for a lot.
And I agree with him on most stuff. So, yeah.
Dave, I would like to point out that I listed priorities ahead of charisma. I explained my reasons for valuing charisma (not because I want a President I would enjoy having a beer with, but because I believe a charismatic President is more effective). I didn't bother explaining my point about priorities because that should be self-evident. I also mentioned "a minimum acceptable level of experience and competence" being a requirement.
I think you are equating your dislike of Ted Kennedy's priorities and personal conduct with a lack of qualifications and effectiveness as a Senator. I would be interested to know your opinion of George W. Bush. Does he have any business being President?
I'm an independent who leans Democratic. At the outset of the campaign I wanted Bill Richardson, but by the time the Wisconsin Primary rolled around, only Hillary and Obama were left. I did have some concerns that maybe Obama was the candidate of the future, but needed more experience; however, Hillary is very polarizing, people either love her or hate her, and I didn't think that she could be an effective leader under the circumstances. And I do agree with many, though not all, of Obama's positions. So he became a pragmatic choice. I think his selection of Biden for the ticket was an excellent move to shore up the experience issue as best as he could. I believe that no matter which candidate wins in November, his first choice for Secretary of State should be---Bill Richardson.
Post a Comment