Barack Obama has some genuine strengths: He is good looking, he is unusually serene for a man so young, and he seems decent and straight-talking for a politician. Also he is a man comfortable in his own skin, which is refreshing coming after people like Bill Clinton and Al Gore who are still "growing up" in their fifties.
Obama's weakness is that he is inexperienced. This shows in his numerous naive and inane statements which I will be blogging about in the months to come. But what intrigues me is Obama's insinuation that experience doesn't matter. Whever Hillary chides Obama with inexperience Obama basically replies, "Look where experience has gotten us."
There is some truth in this. Abraham Lincoln had no experience and yet he became America's greatest president. Nixon was experienced and yet his presidency ended in disgrace. Reagan had limited experience and yet his two terms were a triumph. Hillary's own experience is mainly in screwing up.
But this historical record cuts both ways. Eisenhower's experience in foreign policy contributed to American power and prosperity in the 1950s. Jimmy Carter's inexperience resulted in American abandonment of the Shah of Iran and brought us the Ayatollah Khomeini. George H. W. Bush's experience helped assemble an international coalition that won the Gulf War. His son's inexperience led to some serious mistakes in the early period of the Iraq war.
Obama's non-sequitur is that experienced people have screwed up, therefore experience is irrelevant. Apply this reasoning to other areas and its absurdity becomes obvious. Consider the following extensions of Obama's argument: "The experienced CEO made a bad investment, so let's replace him with the least experienced guy at the company." "The skilled skater fell during the Olympic trials, so let's put a guy on a team who has never skated before." "The general made a flawed maneuver, so let's turn over the company to Pee Wee Herman."
The Lincoln analogy--which others have applied to Obama--is flawed. The 1860 election was a single-issue election and focused on a grand struggle that would determine what kind of country America would be. That single issue was slavery. Lincoln had been an anti-slavery man all his life and on this issue he was thoroughly experienced. He had addressed the slavery issue in a series of profound debates with Stephen Douglas, debates that are still studied in classrooms today. Lincoln was inexperienced on matters like the economy, but those issues didn't matter very much.
So what is Obama's great issue? Where are his profound meditations on it? These may be forthcoming, but so far we have seen no signs of it, and my sense is that with Obama, what we've seen is what there is. Perhaps Gertrude Stein's words are applicable: "There is no 'there' there."
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 40)
91. brian; I think you are hounded because even though you don't know where the shift key is, you can't spell and you spout nonsense, there seems, at least to me, to be an intelligent guy somewhere back there.
Also, I think you need to feel hounded because you are a christian living in a country controled by christians. Since Christianity developed in persecution, there is a need for followers to feel persecuted, even when none exists.
I think I'm going to start ignoring you though. Even though you seem to be secrelty intelligent, it seems to me you haven't learned anything in time that I've been coming to this post.
Ryan Anderson at 9:29PM on Mar 5th 2008
92. ryan,
would it make you feel better if i called barak barak? if so fine. i do not spout non-sense. but sometimes i admit to not being as serious as you guys and i think my attempt at humor gets some riled? i think you fellows are funny at times and sometimes down right hilarious. but the difference here is that i do not get as irritated as easy.
brian at 9:38PM on Mar 5th 2008
93. ryan,
and one more thing,secretly intelligent? now how could that be? i just consider myself average to a little below. i am not near as smart as most of you fellows but i don't need to be
brian at 9:40PM on Mar 5th 2008
94. DD said,
"Jimmy Carter's inexperience resulted in American abandonment of the Shah of Iran and brought us the Ayatollah Khomeini.
yes i think the ayatollahs have helped all the unrest in the middle east and have been some of the main fuel for the radical muslims
brian at 9:42PM on Mar 5th 2008
95. brian; did you know that we helped over throw the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister (Mohammed Massadegh) in 1953 to install the Shah, who was, in fact, a dictator.
This would be something that the "arab world" doesn't think highly of.
Again, it has very little to do with our culture.
Ryan Anderson at 9:58PM on Mar 5th 2008
96. Wait... So Hil has been President before and Barack has never so much as seen a political debate? Becuase that's what this bloggers CEO/ice skater analogy would lead us to believe.
Poor argument.
Thursdyjoe at 10:20PM on Mar 5th 2008
97. ryan,
yes i did. we were acting in what we thought was our best interest. turns out for a while it was. but after 25 years of the shah and his dictatorial style the iranians had had enough. but do you really think they are better off today? i mean those people in the middle east have not got along since time began. what sane person thinks otherwise? they do not share much in common with us. they are pretty much a warring bunch of people as is evident by their history.
brian at 10:21PM on Mar 5th 2008
98. Yes, I suppose that Barrack Obama really is a remarkable man. Just don't ask him more than "eight questions" as reporters had the "audacity" to do the other day, hoping he'd get just a wee bit more specific about his plan for America.
Mr. Obama kind of threw a little fit when question number nine came. Maybe this guy is human after all. And maybe he's not inevitable.
Dave at 10:25PM on Mar 5th 2008
99. Paul hasn't demanded Dinesh to take this blog down yet. Not bad.
Tsar Nicholas II at 11:38PM on Mar 5th 2008
100. Dinesh,
Here's some food for thought. Lincoln was the compromise candidate for the GOP in 1860. The convention in Chicago was deadlocked after a number of ballots.
So, the publisher and editors of the Chicago Tribune, then an abolitionist newspaper, later to become a staunchly conservative Republican paper, started to work the convention floor pushing the idea of Lincoln, to show that the GOP was the party that wanted to end slavery in the U.S.
Even though Lincoln's political experience was limited (and he lost the Senate race to Douglas), his reputation as a courtroom lawyer was well known in the Midwest, having represented the Illinois Central Rairoad in a number of cases.
Obviously, the Tribune was able to persuade enough delegates to believe that Lincoln had the right view on slavery and intellect to win the general election.
On the other hand, Ronald Reagan won the nomination and general election, because he had a well-defined plan: cut income taxes by 30%; increase military spending, including a 600-ship navy; cut federal spending; and cut federal regulations, as demonstrated by the very thick Federal Register.
Certainly, Obama hasn't articulated a plan as clearly as Ronald Reagan did. His views are pretty much standard Democrat philosophy. And while Obama loves to talk about being the first black to be the editor of the Harvard Law Review, which is impressive, his legal career in Chicago isn't extraordinary. He's not of the same caliber as some of the heavyweights that have practiced law in Chicago over the years, such as Albert Jenner, Barry Montgomery, Phil Corboy, Patrick Tuite, or Don Reuben.
Kent at 12:33AM on Mar 6th 2008
101. "Obama's non-sequitur is that experienced people have screwed up, therefore experience is irrelevant."
Dinesh, you are intelligent enough to know that if you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making. Obama's response to Hillary asserts nothing more than you conceded ealier: experience does not guarantee success, nor does inexperience guarantee failure. Suggesting otherwise is intellectual dishonesty; stretching his words to cover your examples is deliberate falsehood.
You are an intelligent and educated man, Dinesh. You are certainly smart enough to know that when you resort to lies to make your point, it suggests you can't make your point without them.
CharlesB at 12:48AM on Mar 6th 2008
102. 97. Paul hasn't demanded Dinesh to take this blog down yet. Not bad.
Tsar Nicholas II at 11:38PM on Mar 5th 2008
THIS A-HOLE Tsar IS dd. GUARANTEEED. I CAN FEEL THE SMUGNESS JUST COMING THROUGH. DON'T BE FOOLED BY THIS SCHMUCK!
America's Most Gangsta at 2:30PM on Mar 6th 2008
103. He is a nice looking man -easy gangsta.
Dinesh's first paragraph was an homage to Obama. Lighten up.
les at 9:49AM on Mar 6th 2008
104. "they are pretty much a warring bunch of people as is evident by their history"
brian; this is a myth. Pre-1948, they were no more "warring" than any other group of people. The whole region got screwed by the colonial powers.
Think about what happened in Europe between 1848 and 1945 and tell me that "they are pretty much a warring bunch of people".
Ryan Anderson at 8:44AM on Mar 6th 2008
105. WOW - The hot steaming cup of stupid award has a new champion!
Little God Nazi brian says: "i have never read an ann coulter book ever. and i would not read one either."
I am beging to suspect the only book you have is a dog-eared copy of the bible, probably with lots of pictures to help you understand it better. This is also contingent on the fact that you can even read...your comprehension skills are mind-bogglingly wretched.
"she is just stirring the pot like DD is doing except DDis more masterful at it than she. though she is better looking and that sells!!"
Wait, if you didn't read any of her books, how do you know this?
"but the reason i use obama's middle name is that i like it so much. i like it better than obama. i mean whay would his wife call him obaby!! obaby bama ohbar-rack my bama momma??? its hard for me to do this where is mo when needed, oh mo oh mo you there mo? come out of hiding."
Could you be any more racist? Or xeonophobic? Or - for that matter - childish?
Get a life, you little God-Nazi. You're a pathetic excuse for a Christain. Frankly, you're a pathetic excuse for an American. You're one of the reasons that I am glad abortion is legal, but also makes me wish it was retro-active.
TIM at 8:50AM on Mar 6th 2008