Kathleen Parker had an interesting column in yesterday’s SJ-R. In it, she put forth the premise that many supporters are attracted to the idea of Barack Obama, the hope and change and all that, rather than to the man himself, who Parker finds somewhat unidentifiable up to this point.
On the Democrat side of the ledger, I’m more enthusiastic with the idea of Obama being president, but when it comes down to which of the two leading candidates I’d rather see in the White House, I’m more comfortable with Hil.
I realize that when it comes to experience as an elected leader, there’s not much that separates the two. Yet you can’t discount the eight years that Hillary spent in the White House and the fact that Bill will be at her side. All libidinous transgressions aside, history will judge Bill as at worse a competent president, and probably a pretty good one.
I can’t say that I really like Hillary, but for some reason I trust here not to do anything rash. The opposite is true for Obama.
Obama is an inspiring speaker, obviously intelligent and sports a winning charisma. His election would be symbolic of positive changes in America’s approach to domestic and international matters. I’m just not sure he can deliver those changes.
When you listen to Obama’s campaign rhetoric – and maybe that’s all it is, a way to rally the impressionable – you get the feeling that he isn’t chasing votes so much as converting the unfaithful. I don’t believe that Obama is actually being overcome by the messianic complex that some feel he is inflicted with, but I also have doubts that he’s fully prepared for the down and dirty job of being the leader of the free world.
I don’t want a president who feels that he has been chosen from on high to carry out his vision on behalf of his minions. I want a president who feels that, after an intense interview process, she or he has been selected for the toughest job in the world and so she or he had better work hard and not screw it up.
Perhaps I’m not idealistic enough. I’m all for hope and change, and maybe Obama really can deliver us a brighter tomorrow. The pragmatist in me, however, feels safer with a Clinton or McCain or Bloomberg working towards a somewhat better future.
In my opinion, the best thing that could happen to Obama, although it’s unlikely, is to serve as vice president for eight years and then run for president again. His star won’t be as bright by then, but he’d have the power of White House incumbency behind him and we’d have a better idea of the man behind the mystique.
*Notice how I smoothly segued from the Jack Johnson post to this one, despite completely changing the topic. Now that’s blogging, baby.
Loading ...
I’ve never heard anyone who can speak for so long and say so little as Sen. Obama. Hope to Change what, exactly? Great prose, little substance, but he’s a thrill to listen to.
As for Mrs. Clinton’s 8-years of experience in the White House, as Dick Morris points out–and he was there, too–the pastry chef had the same eight years of experience and isn’t running for President. But, the pretty-boy ex-senator from the Carolinas leaves me even emptier after listening to him. Worrisome at best…
BehindTheScenes | Jan 10, 2008 | Reply
As it’s relates to Hillary’s 8 years of experience in the White House, I recently heard a quote that went something like this – and I’m paraphrasing:
Mrs. Brett Favre will take over next season as the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers, citing her 16 years of experience as a quarterback’s wife.
Point being that just because Hillary was in the White House for 8 years, doesn’t mean she’s ready to be the ‘QB’ of the White House.
Brian | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Brian,
That’s a good line, but not a good analogy.
Mrs. Favre has never been in a huddle or a training camp.
Hillary definitely was involved in the White House, more so than maybe any other First Lady. I’m sure she learned as much as Bill’s top level aides and advisors. This still may not qualify her to be president or be enough for me to vote for her, but it’s certainly valuable experience.
Plus as president, Hillary won’t be asked to covert a third-and-long while being chased down by a 280lb defensive end, as Mrs. Farve would be as the Packer’s quarterback.
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Dan,
How come if Hillary was as intimately involved in White House doings during her 8 years there as you contend, she constantly DENIED being so involved during those eight years while she WAS there?
BehindTheScenes | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
BtheS,
I imagine her denial was meant to deflect the negative reaction she received over her healthcare initiative. A lot of people didn’t like the idea of the First Lady, an unelected official, being so involved in such a major policy issue. Hillary has always been more disliked than Bill, so maybe her denial was a calculated political decision in order to keep his approval ratings up.
I read an article that said as First Lady, she mainly exercised “soft power”, contributing to goodwill and human rights issues. Her supporters say that her real experience came from being Bill’s confidant, which allowed her to be at least somewhat involved in the decisions being made on important foreign policy issues. Detractors downplay her level of involvement, especially during the Lewenski scandal.
Whatever the case, given her background and experience, it’s obvious she was more involved than your typical First Lady.
Let me ask you, do you think Obama’s experience in the Illinois Senate is more valuable than her experience in the White House?
(For the record, I’m quite shocked to find myself defending Hillary Clinton. I can hardly bring myself to listen to her speak.)
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
I really can’t say that Obama’s experience in either Senate has impressed me. Neither (I should say none) of the Democratic candidates are being or have been challenged on their lack of credentials “gravitas” if you will, the way the media challenges the Republicans. If Obama can be or has been described as an “empty suit”, why has no one called Clinton an “empty dress”?
BehindTheScenes | Jan 12, 2008 | Reply