What’s most perplexing about the 2008 presidential campaign is the unadulterated love and support Barack Obama has received from America’s young generation (and from American media, but that’s for an entirely different piece). While this support has brought Obama a long way on the seemingly never-ending path toward possible presidential supremacy, Clinton is hanging tough. While I am not a Democrat by any stretch of the imagination, I fluctuate between supporting Obama and Clinton (and by “supporting� I mean “selecting the candidate who won’t make me cry myself to sleep every night if my preferred candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain, happens to lose in November).
Luckily, on the Republican front McCain has officially been granted the candidacy. Instead of debating back and forth with vying party rivals, he can face the complexities associated with the general election, focusing the breadth of his energy on his upcoming battle with a Democratic contender – whomever he or she may be; this is a clear advantage that some Democrats may be underestimating.
When it comes to the overall political spectrum, one cannot help but wonder how the Democrats will possibly rectify the deep divide that the Obama vs. Clinton charade has manifested. With the Republicans losing out in 2006 – a prime example in political theory of “surge and declineâ€? – mixed with an overall distaste for the Bush administration and its policies, left me more than concerned about the prospect of the Republicans losing out in 2008. Bearing in mind Bush’s unpopular status, one might say I had quite a bit to fear. But, then — as it often does in politics — the sociopolitical climate changed.
While many talking heads spouted off about an impending civil war amongst members of the Republican Party, conditions seem to be turning around quite rapidly. Sure, there have been spats and disagreements, but the battle for the Republican nomination is sealed and the focus of political fury has been placed upon the two Democratic contenders who have their hearts set on “making history.� While they’re out pledging to fulfill empty promises that they dress up with elaborate diatribes about “hope� and “change,� McCain is left alone to concentrate on better positioning himself among members of his party who still haven’t accepted him as the most applicable choice – and on the general election, of course. But the Democrats – they’re still battling one another and it isn’t pretty.
The gender and race cards are being pulled so fast that the deck is damn near empty. The other day I was in an elevator and I overheard an African American woman speaking with a man behind me. She was talking about how wonderful it was that a black man had made it so far in America (i.e. Obama). She went on to explain that this was the primary reason she’d be voting for him (assuming he receives the Democratic nomination).
Now, this is where my frustration over the Obama phenomenon reaches its max. While I truly love and value diversity, I would never support an individual on the sole basis of race or ethnicity. In fact, I think it is morally irresponsible to make such an important decision based primarily on an external factor that really bears no affect over the actual ability to lead.
If Barack Obama were Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice, I would be more than supportive (pending that the reason for said support was not based solely on ethnicity). I’m all for diversity, but merit should be based primarily on experience. Unfortunately, Barack Obama does not have the experience one would expect to find in a candidate in the running for the American presidency. Feel free to debate me on that, but it’s basically unarguable at this point.
And don’t even get me started on Hillary Clinton. The last thing this nation needs is another Clinton in the White House – but I digress. Supporting someone based primarily on race or gender is silly and unbelievably naive. Real leadership comes from within (and from the experiences gained in the many instances that shape our hearts and minds).
And let’s not forget about “hope� and “change� – the weasel words that he and Hillary throw around so spuriously that one cannot help but wonder if they ever deviate from their scripted banter.
The fact of the matter is this: We need a president who is ready and willing to take on the complex issues that are stampeding our nation – and our world. While all three contenders are more than willing, are they ready?
The only candidate who has proven longitudinal experience coping with peace, war and the institutions that govern the American political schema is John McCain. Argue with me all you’d like, but the facts, the timelines and all other secondary sources of data point to his experience and willingness to reach across the aisle (something that is desperately needed when considering the level of stagnation that has been created by partisan politics in recent years).
Let’s hope Americans realize this unalienable fact before it’s too late.
_______________________________________________________
People from around the United States have noticed Billy Hallowell’s hard work and dedication. He has been published/featured in political and cultural books, textbooks as well as articles and websites focusing on the youth of America and its role in the future of the world… For more information on Billy Hallowell go to www.williamhallowell.com.
How exactly has Condi Rice’s experience helped in her capacity as Secretary of State? Her cluelessness in office about, inter alia, the popularity of Hamas before they were elected into power as well as the methods that Al Qaeda will use to kill, was almost topped by the embarrassment of watching a former Joint Chiefs of Staff spend several hours lying to the world about the status of Iraq’s weapon program.
These two individuals are no more qualified to serve as President than Hillary Clinton touting her years as first lady as “experience” when, in fact, the most important foreign policy decision that she made while in office (voting to authorize military action against a secular enemy of fundamentalist Iran and Al Qaeda) was completely off base.
As we have seen with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. experience does not always produce wisdom. How much experience did our greatest President have (Abramham Lincoln) before he was elected?
It’s not very sociable to tell us to “feel free to debate me on that, but it’s basically unarguable at this point.”;-)
I think we hashed out our personal feelings here about Obama and Clinton before you came on board, Billy I don’t feel inspired to argue your points, which I find banal.
This is the most readable post you’ve made yet, but it seems to be one more instance of you talking about Billy and what Billy likes or dislikes.
Not to be rude, but I don’t really care what you like, and why should I?.
It would be more interesting to discuss the candidate’s ideas it seems a bit disingenuous to pretend that Obama and Clinton have none.
For instance, Obama’s campaign has issued a fifteen-page position paper on his “plan to ensure a healthy America”.
You may find his rhetoric to be lightweight, but what do you think about his health care plan, or his global climate plan?
How do you feel about his support of a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard, or his attack on the idea that corn-based ethanol is going to help lower carbon emissions?
I think the corn ethanol program is a fraudulent scheme backed by the corporate factory-farm lobby.
What do you think?
Let’s not be like the rest of the media, let’s talk about the candidates’ ideas.
To an extent. Before I delve into candidates’ opinions on the issues, tell me your thoughts on this part of the piece, Vince:
The gender and race cards are being pulled so fast that the deck is damn near empty. The other day I was in an elevator and I overheard an African American woman speaking with a man behind me. She was talking about how wonderful it was that a black man had made it so far in America (i.e. Obama). She went on to explain that this was the primary reason she’d be voting for him (assuming he receives the Democratic nomination).
Now, this is where my frustration over the Obama phenomenon reaches its max. While I truly love and value diversity, I would never support an individual on the sole basis of race or ethnicity. In fact, I think it is morally irresponsible to make such an important decision based primarily on an external factor that really bears no affect over the actual ability to lead.
Your last paragraph is 100% on point and precisely why I vehemently oppose affirmative action. How can you claim to desire a level playing field when you are seeking preferences based on immutable characteristics?
It seems to me that you are overgeneralizing from your example. A chance encounter with a woman in an elevator doesn’t translate into a groundswell of unthinking support for Obama by preference-seeking African-Americans.
If you had grown up African-American in the South before or during the civil rights era, you might be able to empathize a little more with the pride black people have in a candidate who could have a shot at the presidency. Certainly some people support him for irrational reasons, but I see plenty of that with white people, too.
“Unadulturated love” seems a strange choice of words to describe the enthusiasm that young people have for a charismatic speaker who is able to inspire them.
I think this is a time in U.S. history when we have a chance to effect some real change in the the way this country is run. While McCain possibly could make an able leader, I have little faith that he is really interested in wresting control of our government back from corporate interests.
He’s gonna dance with them that brung ‘im to the ball.
The fact that Obama’s campaign donations are obtained at a grassroots level gives me confidence that he would be able to act more independently in office, not being beholden to the corporations the way the Bush/Cheney administration has been, and McCain would surely be, as well.
Vince: Your last paragraph draws a sensible conclusion from your point of view. Personally, I see it as more of an expectation. The ‘game’ has rules that even he might be obliged to acquiesce to.
Enough nonsense about McCain and the “Straight Talk” express. Here’s the REAL McCain…as described in THE NATION:
“The presumptive Republican presidential nominee made a name for himself as a senator as one of the notorious Keating Five, legislators busy intervening in regulatory matters on behalf of crooked S&L baron Charles Keating. As McCain sells it (and the media tell it), this was the turning point in his career, a brush with ignominy that set him on his path as a maverick reformer.
But the narrative of McCain as redeemed sinner is sharply at odds with his record, a sliver of which came to light when the New York Times published, after months of dithering, a front-page story on his relationship with a lobbyist whose clients had business before his Senate committee.
Leaving aside the unconfirmed sex insinuations surrounding McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman, the established facts are tawdry enough: McCain intervened with a regulatory body on behalf of a cable company his committee was regulating, after receiving thousands in donations from its CEO, meeting with the CEO and spending lots of time with a lobbyist working for the firm. In the ginned-up outrage that followed the Times story, McCain denied ever having spoken to CEO Lowell Bud Paxson about the pending case before the FCC, a falsehood contradicted by Paxson and by McCain himself in a 2002 deposition. And it wasn’t just Paxson. In 2001 McCain went to bat for the entire cruise industry when it was a lucrative client of Iseman’s firm, Alcalde and Fay.
All par for the course. Despite his branding as a crusading reformer, McCain was and continues to be a business-as-usual conservative. Indeed, he doesn’t just cozy up to lobbyists on planes or take their money–half a million in this campaign cycle alone. They are running his campaign. As the Washington Post reported the day after the Times story broke, McCain’s inner circle is dominated by lobbyists, one of whom, Charles Black, recently copped to handling his lobbying business by phone from the back of the Straight Talk Express!
And while the monied interests do their work from the back of his campaign bus, the straight talker is busy running as far as possible from the signature legislative achievement that bears his name: the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. This started in 2001, when McCain, while pushing to end the massive unregulated donations known as soft money, set up a nonprofit called the Reform Institute, which existed chiefly to–you guessed it–soak up large, unregulated donations from corporate interests, including $200,000 from Cablevision. (Not surprisingly, McCain devoted great energy to its pet cause before the Commerce Committee.) And now McCain, who secured a bank loan on the collateral of his future federal campaign funds, is attempting to back out of his commitment to use public financing, contradicting the spirit of the program.
This, then, is John McCain: not a maverick but what Reformation-era Christians called an antinomian, one who believes that for those who are holy, all is permitted. McCain seems to think he is released from the obligations that bind lesser politicians.
The press, which has shown its willingness to go along with this ludicrous posture, has a basic obligation to call it what it is: the stale corruption of a status quo that must change.”
This corrupt phony shouldn’t be allowed within 100 miles of the White House.
Taking your argument seriously I expect we’ll have to rely on Obama’s representations in the same fashion as we relied on Johnson’s with respect to Goldwater’s foreign policy positions. You pays your money, etc. I expect you to present a fitting rebuttal to this. Yet, Obama, even in the face of his policy statements, is a largely unknown and untested entity in this whole business, and I for one refuse to disregard that in my assessment of these candidates. Ultimately, the DNC will choose based on their assessment of who is most likely to prevail over McCain, and I am certain that a great deal more we’ll never know will enter into that final decision.
One more observation. When a candidate prevails by a few tenths of a percentage point in a national election this does not constitute a clear majority. What the Democrats needed in 2000 and 2004 was an incontrovertible win (Florida not withstanding). The Electoral College prevents this because the popular vote can go by the wayside. What remains to be seen will be not only who the Dems will launch but the size of the turnout, how many will vote the party, and how many will crossover. If Obama is the candidate, he will have to prevail by at least 2 percentage points to satisfy me.
Thanks, Steve.
I agree with the Nation piece.
How interesting that Democrats are criticized for using “hope” and “change” when the Republicans have been riding “morals” for the last two presidential elections. All politicians use vague generalizations and buzz words, unfortunately most Americans fall for it. I’m independent and I’m sure you can see why!
Ray,
“Hope” and “change” are the same exact themes that Reagan (an extremely mediocre president that has been elevated to iconic status by conservatives) successfully employed in 1980 when he easily defeated a very unpopular incumbent. As usual with Republicans, it’s do as they say, not as they do.