Since Obama clinched the nomination with almost 99.99999% certainty, McCain found it a good opportunity to grab attention for his irrelevant campaign. He, like Hillary, see Obama's weakness in his lack of "experience." I assume they mean political experience because Obama's work as a civil rights attorney seems just as relevant as Hillary's time in the White House avoiding sniper fire. McCain and Hillary's time as career politicians will make them ready "day one" to answer late night phone calls. Obama should counter the experience argument with a few examples of experienced members of the Bush administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, to name a few of his experienced staff that had a part in one of the biggest disasters in American history. Hillary was one of these experienced politicans to have supported the war and no Democrat should be so forgiven for this mistake that they should be given the nomination for the presidency (let alone never apologizing for the vote).
McCain is trying to pre-empt the Democrat attacks which will label everything "the Bush-McCain X." Well Maverick, supported the war, tax cuts for the wealthy, embracing the religious right, and weakening his position on torture is not a Maverick. Ron Paul is a maverick... In conclusion, being a "maverick" or "experienced" is not necessarily good and is often Ron Paul, I mean bad. Seriously Ron Paul supporters, what's the deal?
2 comments:
I have to disagree, at least with the experience part. I'm still totally behind Obama, but I find his lack of experience disturbing. (See what I did there?)
Hillary did way more in the White House than avoid sniper fire. I'm not saying all of it was successful (health care reform), but even in a ceremonial role she traveled the world and served as a diplomatic figurehead for the US. Both Hillary and McCain have the advantages of long-standing relationships that Obama just hasn't had time to cultivate yet.
Of course, experience has nothing to do with ideology, as you pointed out. But I think that of all the reasons to dislike Obama, the experience argument is probably the most valid. Although the public loves to elect "outsiders" that will reform the presidency, the most successful politicians are often "insiders" that can work the system to their advantage, and this inside position comes with experience. In summation, lack of experience is a valid argument, but if Obama concentrates on building strong political relationships (as he has been doing his whole campaign), he can successfully challenge McCain's attacks.
Again, I don't think political experience necessarily translates to better leader. There have been presidents with (Nixon, LBJ) and without (Carter) heavy political experience that made poor presidents. I just don't see why we accept that more time in office = better president. If anything, I am inclinded to think more time in office coorelates to coruption due to the nature of our political process. Obama's experience defending civil rights in Chicago will make him a better president than Bush executing mentally challenged prisoners as govenor or McCain having to sell out his ideals over the past 8 years to get nominated. Obama isn't as skilled a politician like the Clintons. But afer 8 years of Bush, I don't think there will be a need in 2009 for Obama to reach across the aisle to compromise on the issues like Bill did during his presidency. For the first time in 28 years there will be a genuine liberal running things, pretty exciting. What was I talking about? Sorry, thinking of Obama clouds my judgement. I wish he would post a comment on my blog.
Post a Comment