“Is America ready for a Black President?”
“Obama, Black contender for the White House…”
On and on and on
This is all that I have been reading and hearing for the past couple of months on all the hype surrounding Barack Obama. In the comments of this post, I basically made the statement that while Obama has the charming smile and a stellar way of communicating, the one thing that is going to be a big issue for him is going to be his paper-thin record on the issues.
I don’t know about you, but where I come from one of the major factors that folks use when considering to vote somebody is - their - past - experience - on - the - issues. I could care less about the boxer/briefs questions, just show me what you have done. From what I have seen and read on Obama, there is nothing there that would make me consider him for the presidency–even if he is a brotha.
As I said in my comments on the earlier post, about 99% of the hype I have heard surrounding Obama has more to do with the fact that he is the first Black candidate rather than the issues he stands for. The question that comes into my mind here is “Does the media expect the general public to treat him with kid gloves because he is Black?”
The assertion that “nobody cannot have experience needed to be the president” is just plain relativism. To make such an assertion is to discount the time tested path that was/is expected of the majority of candidates for this position. When MLK made the statement that he wanted to live in a country where Black folks would be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin, I agreed with him. So far, the media has turned this dream the other way around for Obama.
If you wish to comment, fine. Just give me some reasons why I should vote for him.
I can’t give you a reason to vote for him but what I can say is that America is not going to vote a black man into the office of president no matter how good looking and chraming he he may appear.
Obama’s not the first Black candidate for President by a long shot.
Two, experience isn’t a priority with many American voters; persona is. Look how many voters chose our current President because,
‘He’s the type of guy I’d like to have over for the family cookout’.
It’s Obama’s task to give you reasons for voting for him. Your end of the bargain is to listen. Carefully.
Look how many voters chose our current President because,
‘He’s the type of guy I’d like to have over for the family cookout’
Naw, you might be confusing that with Clinton. Most people voted for Bush because they knew that Kerry despite how well Kerry could communicate, he would not do squat against terrorists.
“Most people voted for Bush because they knew that Kerry… would not do squat against terrorists.”
It looks like Bush voters sure screwed the pooch on that one.
BTW, what do you think they were relying upon to make such a decision? It couldn’t be the two candidates’ military service records, could it?
Hmmm, let’s see…
There was Kerry’s voting RECORD and there was Bush’s already established RECORD of going after terrorists after 9/11.
Keyword here is RECORD.
All I am saying here is that Obama is still considered a freshman senator with a very, very short voting record. If he wants to convinve Americans that he is the right man for the job (people like me at least), he is going to have to point to a well-seasoned record on the issues, not just two books on your hopes and dreams.
Obama’s got nothing and he knows it, most of what I have heard is a bunch of empty platitudes from this guy and no substance. He will have to come up with a whole lot more to convince me to vote for him.
Yes Duane he is a media darling but it appears to me they will hype him only enough to make us think how tolerent the left is and then drop him on his head. If he makes a splash all the way to the convention there will be a delegate fight and he will loose.
Has this happen before?
It’s more than a little disingenous to compare the record of an incumbent executive with that of a legislator. A better indicator of a candidate’s acumen as a military commander is their actual history of military service. Kerry saw combat and has a distinguished record of performance. Bush?
But if we’re to use your preferred standard, Kerry voted for the resolutions to use military force in prosecuting al-Queda for the 9/11 attacks and removing WMDs from Iraq. Bush has mishandled both duties — painstakingly clear evidence of which man’s actually incompetent.
All that’s water under the bridge, though. My point is ‘experience’ isn’t as critical to a viable presidency as many do suggest.
Hold up! You said:
It’s more than a little disingenous to compare the record of an incumbent executive with that of a legislator.
Now let’s go back to the statment that made the original comparison (hint: not by me)
“Look how many voters chose our current President because,
‘He’s the type of guy I’d like to have over for the family cookout’.”
I agree with you that experience isn’t everything, but I think that you would have to agree that so far in the case of Obama, the experience bar is being lowered favoring more the sprinkles he brings to the table. It is the lowering of this bar that disturbs me.
What is the supposedly so important “experience” that Obama lacks? As a Californian you should realize that great innovation which lead to dymanic progress is created by people with no experience.
Just because the massa’ says that Obama can not and should not win is enough to prevent many people from considering him viable.
What is the supposedly so important “experience†that Obama lacks? As a Californian you should realize that great innovation which lead to dymanic progress is created by people with no experience.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Man, thanks for making my point!
I’ll let what you just said sink in for a minute.
Laugh as hard as you can…Open minds create progress, closed minds suffocate it. The enterprises that have been started by people with no experience include; Apple, Microsoft, Pixar, Hewlett Packard, Amazon.com, EBay, Google….
I would like to see the lessons learned from the world of business innovation applied to bearucratic and policy issues.
Just a lil’ something I came across:
From CBS news:
“And on the second day, Obama went to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iraq. He basically asked one question. It rambled on for a long, long time punctuated with a lot of “ahs,” “ers,” “ands,” and well, it just wasn’t pretty or eloquent. It was not the Obama we yearn to see.
This is probably unfair, but the junior Senator from Illinois got a free ride to the front pages and first sections of network newscasts yesterday after he used the hermetically sealed World Wide Web to announce his exploratory committee. It just seems like a big let down.
Maybe this is good. It gives everyone a chance to sit back and conduct a reality check on Senator Obama.
Campaign Experience: Little to None.
Obama has no real campaign experience.
1996: In his first election, to the Illinois state Senate, he was unopposed in the Democratic primary. This is in Chicago, on the Southside. He won, automatically.
2000: Obama tried to defeat incumbent 1st District Democratic Representative Bobby Rush in the 2000 primary. Rush had the endorsement of the Daley machine and, this is important, then President Bill Clinton. With the establishment behind him, Rush easily beat back Obama, 61% to 30%. This is charitably called a “political misstep.”
2004: Some experienced political experts believe Barack Obama is an accidental United States Senator. Why? Because he won the primary and the general election in 2004 after it was learned that his main opponents in each race had been very bad husbands. In the general election, Republican Jack Ryan turned out to have forced his wife to go to sex clubs. He eventually withdrew and was replaced by Alan Keyes, a very conservative African American.
Why does this matter? Because when Barack Obama goes up against Sen. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, among others, he will face experienced candidates and expert staffs. He will not get a free ride. (source)
And this…
`Along comes Obama, who obviously has great communication skills and clicks with people. But, ultimately, you’re going to have to give people a more basic idea of what you’re about,” said Democratic political consultant Chris Lehane, who worked for Al Gore’s 2000 campaign but is not currently affiliated with any presidential candidate.
“Is he going to be the Google of the presidential campaign and redefine the model or will he be the Webvan.com, which has a lot of promise on paper and takes off quickly, but ultimately sinks.” (source)
====
But again, maybe I am not being open-minded here by comparing him to Bill Gates or Steve Jobs (who by the way built their companies FROM THE GROUND UP). I am not saying that he will be a terrible president. My only point here is that like any other interview process, the employee (We the people) always rely heavily on the resume. Personality and charm oftentimes can get you into the door, but in the end it all comes to the resume. While some people may be sold on the idea of having a walk-on as leader of the free world, I am not that comfortable with that idea.
Its a pity someone like Noam Chomsky is not running.
” It is the lowering of this bar that disturbs me.”
The irony in that statement is there’s no bar.
When you look at past presidents and experience BEFORE considering running for office, the bar is there. That bit of history only becomes blurred when good people put desparation over common sense. Playing your argument all the way out, Nipsey Russell would have been just as qualified as Obama. Just as long as they both have the desire.
“When you look at past presidents and experience BEFORE considering running for office, the bar is there.”
Really?
At two presidents’ names come to mind right off were elected to office with ZERO prior experience in any elected office: Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower. By the time of the ‘08 election, Obama will have more experience as an elected official than G.W. Bush did when he ran for President.
What’s the ‘bar’, again, exactly?
Do a Wikipedia search for both of the people you mentioned and you will see that they both had experience demonstrating their ability to lead within government. Especially Eisenhower.
By the time of the ‘08 election, Obama will have more experience as an elected official than G.W. Bush did when he ran for President.
Uh, no.
The two things that G.W. had going into the presidency were A. He was the governor of one of the largest states in the union. That means that he had to deal will all the aspects of leading a state and B. His father was a president. While you may discount this, this was widely considered a plus for many voters because they knew that he at least had a working familiarity of DC politics AT THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL and not just media telling him that he is John F. Kennedy reincarnate (as with Obama). Heck, I’m helping you out here by mentioning JFK who is widely considered by modern-day liberals as one of the greatest American presidents. Check his history too and you will see that while he only had 6 years of actual experience in the senate, it was the fact that he came from a political family (#1), and his younger look (#2 - remember the debate between he and Nixon) that got him elected as president. Obama has about 2 years of experience in the Senate and about 7 years in the Illinois state senate representing part of Chicago’s south side. Check out what happened in 2000:
Obviously, Rush’s comments were based on a consensus from that district.
And as I mentioned in an earlier comment, the way he won in 2004 was not based on any real mandate by voters.
Again, I return to my earlier assessment: While we have no way (without a real crystal ball) of telling if Obama would make a great president, based on what I know about him I am not convinced that he is the one to bring balance to the Force. Without all the media hype, he is just another politician. I’m not waiting for him to lay out his great plan for America–I’m just looking at his resume and just based on that alone, I am not impressed. John Edwards faced the same thing and got stomped. Think about it, the main reason why Kerry chose him as a running mate was because of his youthful look–not what he brought to the table. I will say this however, Obama’s gift of communicating I believe will get him far in his presidential run. Can he convince America that despite has lack of experience in leadership he can lead the greatest nation in the free world? Not without the media’s help he won’t.
Is anyone else on your radar as a possible choice for president?