Thursday, March 20, 2008
2008 Election - a unique opportunity
George Bush was elected essentially because there were a lot of people who thought he would be a good guy to have a beer with. In a close election, that was the difference. Apologists for his lack of intelligence consoled themselves with the idea that he would hire good advisers. He and his advisers have now thoroughly screwed up our economy, our energy policy, and our foreign policy over 7 years.
The candidate the Democrats put up in opposition each time was very intelligent but stiff, perceived as snobby mostly because they failed to connect with voters on an emotional as well as intellectual level. I lamented then, and in the years since, that with a whole country of people to choose from, why is it so fecking hard to get someone who is intelligent AND likable AND can connect through his rhetoric?
Finally! After years of poor choices, this year there is finally the caliber of candidates that we should have every time around.
John McCain -- the least objectionable Republican candidate in my lifetime. He has principles that he is willing to stick to (so far), in spite of what his party's line might be. I don't agree with him on many issues, but I am at least confident that he's not going to sell out the country to his business buddies, or force my eventual kids to pray to his God. And because he seems to be endowed with reason, I can even see his point on Iraq, though I think he is wrong (more on that another time).
Hillary Clinton -- In any other year, she'd be a fine choice. She has connections in Washington, and while I don't count her time as First Lady as "experience," I do believe that her presidency would be very similar to Bill's, mostly because of the common associates, styles, and view points. And whether it's PC to say it or not, I give her extra points because she is female-- I understand the fine line that women have to walk when they are in a position of authority, to be both tough and gentle, not cold but not soft either. I am eager to get end the string of 40-whatever Old White Men as president, just to prove we are ready.
But the reason I am not satisfied with either of those is because we have an opportunity to elect a man who is a once-in-a-generation leader, Barack Obama.
Why do I think this?
He brings an extremely rare combination of traits. He is likable. He is inspiring. He has intelligence. He has REAL LIFE experience dealing with the issues that face most of the individuals in this country.
Wait, did I say experience? Isn't that what he supposedly lacks? Let me get to that later. My point is, I have not had the opportunity to support a candidate like Barack Obama in my lifetime, and this is an opportunity this country can't afford to miss (unless we want more of the same). Let's not settle for pretty good when we have a chance to have great.
OK, so is he likable? Is he inspiring? Undoubtedly. He has rare oratory skill. He makes people want to believe in him, want to follow him. Clinton's camp is trying to dismiss this as if it is not important. But I'd say that this ability is one of the most important traits a leader can have. The president has to be able to be both the leader of the people and the face of the nation to the rest of the world. When facing great problems, the ability to inspire the country to follow him is paramount. Name our greatest presidents, and every one of them had the ability to inspire the people. They were not simply good at delegating or good at making policy. The ability to inspire: for Obama, it is superior, and innate; for McCain or Clinton, it is simply average.
Experience? Hillary Clinton is really reaching when she claims her time as first lady counts as experience. And even if I thought that it should count, it's a stretch that that experience is somehow important to being president. What is far more important than experience, is intelligence and integrity. It is the ability to assimilate all the relevant information and render a decision, to understand and incorporate opposing points of view before acting.
There is one year left in the term of our president who decided that he was going to be decisive, regardless of whether that decision was smart or foolish. (It's as if he had heard once that good leaders appear decisive, but missed the part where you are supposed to make an effort reaching that decision.) Anyone who didn't agree with him was wrong and was ignored. He did NOT reach across the aisle to those who did not vote for him, he dismissed them and he stressed his obligation to represent only those who DID vote for him.
Obama is the Anti-Bush. He does not make his decision until he understands why he might be wrong, (check out this piece). He has spent his life on the front lines, confronting on a small scale many of the issues that face the country today, such as when he was a community organizer working in Chicago. The most remarkable thing about that is that he not only worked to get politicians to pay attention to problems, he worked with communities to teach them how to get the politicians to pay attention to their problems. He did not simply rally people to demand help, he educated them on how to help themselves. So, he has very real and very relevant experience in bringing together two sides with nothing in common and getting results. I can't think of what would be more practical.
Clinton would also like to claim that she is better qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. This makes no sense. What you need is the ability to absorb information, consider options, understand the implications of those options, and make a reasoned decision. Nothing in her resumé suggests that she has an advantage over Obama in this department.
George Bush had intelligent (not "good", but at least smart) advisers, but he wasn't intelligent enough to distinguish potential good advice from bad-- that which was based on greed and self-serving priorities. You don't need to know it all to be Commander-in-Chief, but you do need to be able to take in the new in quickly, and this is a great strength of Obama's.
Is Obama perfect? Get serious! There is no such thing as a perfect human being. Obama sat in church while his Pastor made incendiary and potentially hateful comments. Weigh Pastor Wright's comments against all he has done for the poor, the sick, and the needy, and you do not get a bad person, you get a complicated and real person. This is a person that Obama appears to accept as a flawed individual but one who also does actual good for his community. Be honest-- what do you do when a co-worker or acquaintance or family member makes comments that you find hateful or offensive. Do you confront them on it? I bet less than 10% of people do. Do you leave the room and try to forget about it? Probably... and what does that accomplish, other than sparing your having to listen to them? Nothing, and yet, that's what many have suggested that Obama should have done. Why? To save his political future? Now THAT would be cowardly, and that is not the road Obama takes.
Obama's speech on race (below)is a really good window into the way he will confront issues. He is not going to sweep it under the rug, he is going to tell it like it is and expect the American people to take the time to listen, as Jon Stewart put it, "as if they were adults." He is not going to fix all the world's problems, because no one person can. But he is going to help the American people understand how to get started on fixing them themselves.
Barack Obama is intelligent, educated, wise, inspiring, and also imperfect and human. He has the ability to inspire and lead; he has the strength of character to address the problems without being bound by labels of Conservative or Liberal; and he has the strength enough in his convictions and confidence enough in his intellect not only not to fear, but in fact to actively seek opposing points of view, in order to deepen his understanding of an dilemma and fortify the resulting decision. This election offers an opportunity to elect a leader like I haven't seen in my lifetime. Let's try not to screw it up.
Obama's Speech on race, 3/18/08
The candidate the Democrats put up in opposition each time was very intelligent but stiff, perceived as snobby mostly because they failed to connect with voters on an emotional as well as intellectual level. I lamented then, and in the years since, that with a whole country of people to choose from, why is it so fecking hard to get someone who is intelligent AND likable AND can connect through his rhetoric?
Finally! After years of poor choices, this year there is finally the caliber of candidates that we should have every time around.
John McCain -- the least objectionable Republican candidate in my lifetime. He has principles that he is willing to stick to (so far), in spite of what his party's line might be. I don't agree with him on many issues, but I am at least confident that he's not going to sell out the country to his business buddies, or force my eventual kids to pray to his God. And because he seems to be endowed with reason, I can even see his point on Iraq, though I think he is wrong (more on that another time).
Hillary Clinton -- In any other year, she'd be a fine choice. She has connections in Washington, and while I don't count her time as First Lady as "experience," I do believe that her presidency would be very similar to Bill's, mostly because of the common associates, styles, and view points. And whether it's PC to say it or not, I give her extra points because she is female-- I understand the fine line that women have to walk when they are in a position of authority, to be both tough and gentle, not cold but not soft either. I am eager to get end the string of 40-whatever Old White Men as president, just to prove we are ready.
But the reason I am not satisfied with either of those is because we have an opportunity to elect a man who is a once-in-a-generation leader, Barack Obama.
Why do I think this?
He brings an extremely rare combination of traits. He is likable. He is inspiring. He has intelligence. He has REAL LIFE experience dealing with the issues that face most of the individuals in this country.
Wait, did I say experience? Isn't that what he supposedly lacks? Let me get to that later. My point is, I have not had the opportunity to support a candidate like Barack Obama in my lifetime, and this is an opportunity this country can't afford to miss (unless we want more of the same). Let's not settle for pretty good when we have a chance to have great.
OK, so is he likable? Is he inspiring? Undoubtedly. He has rare oratory skill. He makes people want to believe in him, want to follow him. Clinton's camp is trying to dismiss this as if it is not important. But I'd say that this ability is one of the most important traits a leader can have. The president has to be able to be both the leader of the people and the face of the nation to the rest of the world. When facing great problems, the ability to inspire the country to follow him is paramount. Name our greatest presidents, and every one of them had the ability to inspire the people. They were not simply good at delegating or good at making policy. The ability to inspire: for Obama, it is superior, and innate; for McCain or Clinton, it is simply average.
Experience? Hillary Clinton is really reaching when she claims her time as first lady counts as experience. And even if I thought that it should count, it's a stretch that that experience is somehow important to being president. What is far more important than experience, is intelligence and integrity. It is the ability to assimilate all the relevant information and render a decision, to understand and incorporate opposing points of view before acting.
There is one year left in the term of our president who decided that he was going to be decisive, regardless of whether that decision was smart or foolish. (It's as if he had heard once that good leaders appear decisive, but missed the part where you are supposed to make an effort reaching that decision.) Anyone who didn't agree with him was wrong and was ignored. He did NOT reach across the aisle to those who did not vote for him, he dismissed them and he stressed his obligation to represent only those who DID vote for him.
Obama is the Anti-Bush. He does not make his decision until he understands why he might be wrong, (check out this piece). He has spent his life on the front lines, confronting on a small scale many of the issues that face the country today, such as when he was a community organizer working in Chicago. The most remarkable thing about that is that he not only worked to get politicians to pay attention to problems, he worked with communities to teach them how to get the politicians to pay attention to their problems. He did not simply rally people to demand help, he educated them on how to help themselves. So, he has very real and very relevant experience in bringing together two sides with nothing in common and getting results. I can't think of what would be more practical.
Clinton would also like to claim that she is better qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. This makes no sense. What you need is the ability to absorb information, consider options, understand the implications of those options, and make a reasoned decision. Nothing in her resumé suggests that she has an advantage over Obama in this department.
George Bush had intelligent (not "good", but at least smart) advisers, but he wasn't intelligent enough to distinguish potential good advice from bad-- that which was based on greed and self-serving priorities. You don't need to know it all to be Commander-in-Chief, but you do need to be able to take in the new in quickly, and this is a great strength of Obama's.
Is Obama perfect? Get serious! There is no such thing as a perfect human being. Obama sat in church while his Pastor made incendiary and potentially hateful comments. Weigh Pastor Wright's comments against all he has done for the poor, the sick, and the needy, and you do not get a bad person, you get a complicated and real person. This is a person that Obama appears to accept as a flawed individual but one who also does actual good for his community. Be honest-- what do you do when a co-worker or acquaintance or family member makes comments that you find hateful or offensive. Do you confront them on it? I bet less than 10% of people do. Do you leave the room and try to forget about it? Probably... and what does that accomplish, other than sparing your having to listen to them? Nothing, and yet, that's what many have suggested that Obama should have done. Why? To save his political future? Now THAT would be cowardly, and that is not the road Obama takes.
Obama's speech on race (below)is a really good window into the way he will confront issues. He is not going to sweep it under the rug, he is going to tell it like it is and expect the American people to take the time to listen, as Jon Stewart put it, "as if they were adults." He is not going to fix all the world's problems, because no one person can. But he is going to help the American people understand how to get started on fixing them themselves.
Barack Obama is intelligent, educated, wise, inspiring, and also imperfect and human. He has the ability to inspire and lead; he has the strength of character to address the problems without being bound by labels of Conservative or Liberal; and he has the strength enough in his convictions and confidence enough in his intellect not only not to fear, but in fact to actively seek opposing points of view, in order to deepen his understanding of an dilemma and fortify the resulting decision. This election offers an opportunity to elect a leader like I haven't seen in my lifetime. Let's try not to screw it up.
Obama's Speech on race, 3/18/08
