not in the presidency. At least, not in 2009.
I have nowhere near the expertise of exposure and investigation that journalists such as David Sirota have as a researcher into the political philosophy and ability of Sen. Obama. I have only heard him speak once regarding his book, The Audacity of Hope, and my impression is that he is a sincere man, intelligent, educated, and articulate, and who is, like everyone, formed in adulthood by his childhood.
That may be a childhood that he tends to obssess about, and it may be a childhood that excessively informs the political adult at the moment. Tempering in the US Senate will do him no harm.
“Black America” is a concept he rejects, but it is not one that is rejected by a vocal and considerable number of African-Americans who reserve the special definition to apply only to those descended from slaves shipped to this country from (largely) West Africa two and three hundred years ago. By their definition, Obama is certainly African-American, but not Black. How much of a political conundrum that presents to them in qualifying him as a good candidate who understands “their issues” is still unknown.
He is, by inclination or personality, a consensus builder. In my opinion, the country has been misshaped to almost unrecognizable by the current regime, that building a consensus with any of it adherents is not something I’m interested in seeing any future president do. His published foreign policy ideas are fuzzy, and he has no real international policy exposure, much less experience.
This is a problem beyond his own “greenness” since he has few if any experienced advisors in this area that I am aware of. Consequently, if he were elected president, I question his readiness to appoint (or even know) well-qualified cabinet members, such as Sec’y. of State. At this juncture, we most require a president well versed in international diplomacy and well accoutered with expert help.
There is no argument that Sen. Obama is not personable, charismatic, and a superb public speaker, a “common man,” and a rising star in the Democratic Party. But he is no bold challenger to the status quo — yet. And he is still a tyro in the areas where this country needs a pro.
I’m waiting to see if he will morph from acknowledged liberal to true Progressive, if he will become a man of the (Democratic Party) machine, or find definition as a grass/netroots populist. A self-proclaimed anti-Iraq War politician from the beginning, he took down his 2002 antiwar rally speech from his website. The one that earned him the reputation of which he boasts. I detect a mixed signal from someone who is politically unsure of himself. Nor is he leading any anti-war charge in the Senate*[SEE UPDATE BELOW] for all his perceived (by some) anti-war stance.
UPDATE: The Obama/Murphy/Thompson Iraq War De-Escalation Act
The binding legislation ends President Bush’s escalation by capping the number of troops at January 10, 2007 levels, puts forward specific benchmarks for success in Iraq and establishes a timeline to redeploy our troops. Redeployment, according to the bill, would begin no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of all combat brigades redeployed by March 31, 2008 – a date consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Troops would be sent either home to their families in the U.S., to Afghanistan where more troops are needed to fight the war on terror or would remain in the region to train Iraqis, protect against more violence and perform counterterrorist activities. The Iraq War De-Escalation Act will refocus the efforts of American armed forces on Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and urges the president to send, within 60 days, a Special Envoy to Iraq to begin the important work of diplomacy with key nations in the region. Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops
So, I reject the position of those who would characterize him as the “anti-war candidate” when compared to Hillary Clinton.
Obviously, I wish him to remain a US Senator where his outstanding oratorical skills are best showcased for the time being, accrue experience, and develop his domestic and foreign policy credentials for a few years. And show some leadership in that office before expecting me to trust his ability to lead as president.
I agree. We have no real track record for Obama to justify voting for him. I want the next preseident to have shown that he can do more than just turn on the charm when he wants to.
I mean, isn’t that what we got in the last 2 elections? A guy people supposedly wanted to have a beer with? Did those dumba** news people who reported that forget that many of the world’s leaders don’t drink beer, especially the ones we needed to improve relations with?
Bush II sure has proven to be a dry-beer-drinkin’ back-slappin’ (okay, rubbing) kinda guy.
Another “type” I’m not interested in is the so-called “tough” candidate — the one who goes after the other guy’s balls, regardless of sex.
The kind of toughness I get enthused about is associated with character. I want someone tough enough to do the right thing, even when it’s unpopular; tough enough to balance the budget; tough enough to repair our shambled alliances; tough enough to deliver programs for health care, non-petro fuel development, environmental care and repair (including global warming issues); and tough enough to return America to the business of being America, rather than turning over America to American business.
Any Democratic candidate want a speech-writer? I’m your person.
I am in total agreement with your analysis and conclusion. Excellent work, recommended.
Here’s the man I really would like to see:
march on the pentagon: 3.17.07
I lean favorably towards Al Gore, too. (Disclosure: I also tilt that way in re Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.)
Gore has the proven gravitas, temperament, qualifications, connections, and the intellect that I feel a good candidate should possess. He’s been tempered as vice-president and is no friend to Republicans, especially of the Neo-con stripe. He’s honest, sincere, and I think respected by the Democratic Party as well as the grass/netroots electorate.
And I think he’d be a much better campaigner this go-round against any opponent the Pachyderms choose to put up.
Big plus: He’s certainly not ill-regarded on the international stage being the darling of the film festivals and academies, in addition to receiving a Nobel nomination. Imagine how fine a thing to have a president who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. (Wasn’t Woodrow Wilson?) What a concept!
re: your disclosure: I find it difficult to support H.Clinton on a great many levels. Edwards as lead w/ Feingold as vp is my default positon at this time….with many reservations, primarily based on his [Edwards] statements concerning Iran and the ME situation in general…see Herzlia Conference, even discounting his vote for the war and assuming his acknowledgment that it was a mistake is sincere.
that said, the ideal slate would be Gore/Feingold; as Feingold, while shying from a presidential run, has left himself open to the possibility of an alternative.
I made a comment a week ago in ask’s diary, re: Gore’s gravitas and the potential of it to elevate him well above the current list of candidates…here. I stand by that opinion.
“ Imagine how fine a thing to have a president who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. (Wasn’t Woodrow Wilson?) What a concept!”
indeed!
march on the pentagon: 3.17.07
following your links — thank you.
Regarding the speech, I am pragmatic in assessing candidates’ remarks, keeping Edwards’ audience in mind — just as he must have in preparing his remarks. In my view, there’s nothing inflammatory or “ratcheted up” in his statements in re Iran and its nuclear program over what is the norm among all Western politicians world-wide. So, no fault points to him from me there.
You and I are of like mind regarding Gore, I think. Feingold is another person — like Obama — whom I would like to see remain where he is. Much more opportunity to exercise real power and be effective in the legislative branch, I think, than in the #2 position in the executive. And Feingold is most effective as a US senator. Lucky Wisconsin!
Your thoughts?