Some of Obama’s personality traits that benefited him in the primaries and the general election — his cool, calm demeanor, his reflective, controlled response to questions, his effort to straddle the middle and build consensus — are still benefiting him. He does not seem to get rattled despite unforeseen developments. In contrast to his immediate predecessor who almost always mangled words in his remarks and often did not seem to have a clear focus or direction, Obama speaks well if sometimes haltingly and he seems to stay on message most of the time.
But despite all the hoopla leading up to his inauguration, I think some of the magic that surrounded him to that point has slipped away. His poll approval ratings remain strong, and that is good. He will need high ratings to carry him through his singularly most important task, guiding the government and the nation through this incredibly wretched economic collapse.
I did not find his inaugural address inspiring. In contrast to the soaring rhetoric and cadenced style he had brought to bear on frequent occasions during the election process, I found his inaugural delivery, particularly the first half that was focused on the economy, to be a bit lackluster. He was too matter of fact and his speaking lacked uplifting emotion. Perhaps he purposefully intended not to bring his charisma to bear but I found it disappointing. He seemed to regain his stride in the second half of his address, where he focused on foreign affairs, and at its conclusion. But overall I was disappointed.
After months of sharing the spotlight with the outgoing president and making a point that there can only be one president at a time, to his credit Obama hit the ground running upon assuming office. He and his staff obviously had prepared the groundwork to issue various executive orders on issues such as closing Gitmo, the use of funds in international programs which provide birth control assistance, and limiting lobbyists in his Administration. He also quickly signed his first piece of legislation which overturned a Supreme Court decision that had imposed a very restrictive statute of limitations on wage discrimination claims. And he has kept himself in the public eye day after day talking about the need for a government stimulus package and seeking to bring Republicans on board in support of his favored legislation.
But there have been enough unanticipated distractions, some of which should have been anticipated, that, while not derailing Obama’s ambitious plans, have slowed them down and caused concerns. Not in any particular order, Obama’s designation for secretary of commerce, Governor Bill Richardson, was forced to withdraw from consideration because of an ongoing investigation of possible wrongdoing. He had made a splash and earned the enmity of the Clintons and many of Hillary’s supporters when he opted to support Obama rather than Clinton after he ended his own campaign for the nomination. He, like Senator Kerry, seemed to covet the secretary of state position but it turned out he couldn’t even survive the nominating process to become secretary of commerce. This was a personal flame out for Richardson but also a mark against Obama’s transition team for not having better gauged the seriousness of, and acted earlier on, the matter. Next Obama and his team had to weather the mini-scandal surrounding Timothy Geithner, initially seemingly everyone’s pick for secretary of the treasury, after it emerged that Geithner had failed to pay certain payroll taxes until after he had been picked for Obama’s cabinet or shortly before. Instead of cruising into office as a consensus All-American, Geithner won Senate approval but only after many had remarked about his bad judgment and the irony that in his new position he will oversee the Internal Revenue Service. This was another black and blue mark for the Obama team and its leader. The latest pratfall involves Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for secretary of health and human services, who apparently recently filed amended tax returns to report $128,000 in back taxes and roughly $12,000 in interest. Daschle apparently failed to report income from the use of a car service provided him by a friend and business associate as well as income from consulting.
Rather than the agent of change, Obama has appeared to be the ‘same old same old’ Washington politician when it has come to the selection of his cabinet. Whether these embarrassments have been the result of poor vetting on the part of Obama’s transition team or poor judgment on the part of the nominees, or both, they run the risk of bringing Obama back down to earth too early in his Administration.
Obama’s idealism has also taken a beating in the area of lobbyists in government. Obama issued an executive order on day one establishing strict rules intended to bar former lobbyists from joining Obama’s Administration to work at agencies they recently lobbied. No sooner had the order been promulgated than exceptions were being made, first at the Department of Defense where William Lynn was chosen as deputy secretary of defense after having served at Raytheon, a major defense supplier, and then at the department of the treasury, where a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, Mark Patterson, was being chosen as chief of staff to Geithner. Several Obama aides apparently justified the exception for Lynn on the ground that he was “uniquely qualified” for the job. But wasn’t that the same rationale Obama used to justify his continued support for Geithner after his failure to pay taxes came to light? What exactly does “uniquely qualified” mean anyway? It suggests that no one else could do the job better. And that, as we all know, is hogwash. More importantly, the cynics have already started to criticize Obama for failing to live up to the standards he just set within a week of his setting them.
Obama’s effort to put in place a major stimulus package by mid-February, while still on target, is suffering from the limits to bipartisanship. The President has shown strong leadership not only in remaining focused on obtaining a stimulus package but also in making major overtures to the Republican minority in an effort to craft a bipartisan approach. He should be commended for this effort. Indeed, he may still succeed in obtaining considerable Republican support for a Senate stimulus bill. But the first vote in the House was completely along partisan lines. No Republicans voted for the measure. Even ten Democrats dissented. And many feel the bill was too much the product of the very partisan House Democrats, filled with earmarks and funds for activities that would questionably stimulate the economy in short order.
Obama may be in danger of losing momentum on the stimulus effort. He must again get out in front of the legislation, assure that the ultimate legislation is not merely a vehicle for the advancement of Democratic Party interests, and try to build a currently non-existent consensus that the mixture of tax reductions and government spending in the final legislation is the best way to quickly stimulate the economy. Obama cannot afford to see this project get bogged down in legislative horse trading or fall prey to withering debate on the relative merits of greater tax cuts versus public works expenditures. He must hammer out terms with a coalition of Democratic and Republican senators and then have the Democratic majority in the House pass it if no Republicans there will support it. If the bill represents a bipartisan effort in the Senate continued full scale Republican opposition in the House will matter less.
Obama began with bold steps on the international front, appointing two talented negotiators as his special envoys to the Middle East and Afghanistan. The President also projected a fresh image of America in its relationships abroad by placing his first telephone call to a foreign leader to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, and offering his first television interview to Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned cable network. These were positive steps done in a decisive manner. Unfortunately, heavy lifting follows. Obama will need to figure out what to do with those held at Gitmo as he moves forward in closing the base. And Obama will have the even more challenging task of designing America’s approach toward Afghanistan in an effort to strength opposition to the Taliban and stabilize the region without turning Afghanistan into his Iraq.
Overall, I give Obama a B+ to date. He has acted with relative clarity, decisiveness and boldness in his first ten or eleven days in office. At the same time, problems with those he has nominated to his cabinet, a less than uplifting inaugural address, his inability despite great efforts to fashion a bipartisan approach to a stimulus bill in the House and a lack of success thus far to do so in the Senate, and some quick deviations from his high minded anti-lobbyist rules within days of its promulgation, have joined to keep him from realizing an A or A- thus far. More later!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
Senator Caroline Kennedy? Not My Choice
The media is reporting that Caroline Kennedy, President John F. Kennedy’s daughter, has expressed an interest in the U.S. Senate seat that Hillary Clinton will give up after her confirmation as Secretary of State. The New York Times reported on December 5, 2008 that her cousin, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stated that he believed she was considering it, based upon conversations with her. And Governor David A. Paterson, who will have the authority to select Hillary’s replacement, reported that Caroline had called him on Wednesday, December 3, to discuss the matter. Today’s N.Y. Times (Dec 15) reports that she has decided to pursue the seat.
I do not believe Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to the U.S. Senate. I do not believe she has the life experiences or has shown the temperament to assume such a high office and position of responsibility. I admit that I have not followed Caroline’s life, partly because I have had no interest in doing so and partly because Caroline has sought to live a very private life for many years. Surely that was her choice and I do not begrudge here having made it but to now wish to become a United States Senator is a stretch. Her brother seemed to have a real interest in politics and involved himself in the public arena. Sadly, he died in a plane crash before he was able to pursue elected public office. But Caroline Kennedy? Exactly why is she qualified? She apparently has been active in fundraising for the public school system in New York City and has engaged in other charitable undertakings but until she emerged as a supporter of Barack Obama her political life has been abysmally lacking.
I was in my late teens in college in the Boston area when Ted Kennedy first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1962 at age 30. As I recall, Kennedy, lacking any meaningful political experience, campaigned on the slogan “I can do more for Massachusetts,” clearly pitched toward the fact that his brother had recently become President. The opposition contended that, had Edward Moore Kennedy’s name merely been Edward Moore, no one would have given him the time of day as far as seeking a Senate seat.
Unfortunately, I feel similarly in my opposition to Caroline Kennedy as a Senator. Were her name simply Caroline Schlossberg, her married name, who would think she was qualified to emerge into public life as a U.S. Senator? Yes, she has been involved in some activities of a public character and she did write an editorial in support of Barack Obama and played some role on his vice-presidential selection committee. But I’m not aware that she has been actively involved in the political process in the past.
There may be those who say that, using the above standards, Hillary Clinton lacked the experience to run for U.S. Senate. But, I disagree. First, she ran for the position; she did not seek an appointment. Even Ted Kennedy ran for office in 1962. Second, Hillary Clinton spent eight years in the White House as First Lady and was actively involved in various political struggles, most notably medical care reform. Whether one respected her for those efforts or not, she was not a private person who kept her distance from the hue and cry of American politics. In that same vein, were Maria Shriver to seek an appointment to the U.S. Senate or some other high political office, I might not support her but it wouldn’t be for the reasons I oppose Caroline Kennedy’s appointment. I acknowledge that others have sought high elective office without an obvious “political” background. But most, including Ronald Reagan when he sought the position of California Governor, have been far more involved in American politics and the political process, if even as commentators, than is the case with Caroline.
I do not believe Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to the U.S. Senate. I do not believe she has the life experiences or has shown the temperament to assume such a high office and position of responsibility. I admit that I have not followed Caroline’s life, partly because I have had no interest in doing so and partly because Caroline has sought to live a very private life for many years. Surely that was her choice and I do not begrudge here having made it but to now wish to become a United States Senator is a stretch. Her brother seemed to have a real interest in politics and involved himself in the public arena. Sadly, he died in a plane crash before he was able to pursue elected public office. But Caroline Kennedy? Exactly why is she qualified? She apparently has been active in fundraising for the public school system in New York City and has engaged in other charitable undertakings but until she emerged as a supporter of Barack Obama her political life has been abysmally lacking.
I was in my late teens in college in the Boston area when Ted Kennedy first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1962 at age 30. As I recall, Kennedy, lacking any meaningful political experience, campaigned on the slogan “I can do more for Massachusetts,” clearly pitched toward the fact that his brother had recently become President. The opposition contended that, had Edward Moore Kennedy’s name merely been Edward Moore, no one would have given him the time of day as far as seeking a Senate seat.
Unfortunately, I feel similarly in my opposition to Caroline Kennedy as a Senator. Were her name simply Caroline Schlossberg, her married name, who would think she was qualified to emerge into public life as a U.S. Senator? Yes, she has been involved in some activities of a public character and she did write an editorial in support of Barack Obama and played some role on his vice-presidential selection committee. But I’m not aware that she has been actively involved in the political process in the past.
There may be those who say that, using the above standards, Hillary Clinton lacked the experience to run for U.S. Senate. But, I disagree. First, she ran for the position; she did not seek an appointment. Even Ted Kennedy ran for office in 1962. Second, Hillary Clinton spent eight years in the White House as First Lady and was actively involved in various political struggles, most notably medical care reform. Whether one respected her for those efforts or not, she was not a private person who kept her distance from the hue and cry of American politics. In that same vein, were Maria Shriver to seek an appointment to the U.S. Senate or some other high political office, I might not support her but it wouldn’t be for the reasons I oppose Caroline Kennedy’s appointment. I acknowledge that others have sought high elective office without an obvious “political” background. But most, including Ronald Reagan when he sought the position of California Governor, have been far more involved in American politics and the political process, if even as commentators, than is the case with Caroline.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Congratulations, President-Elect Obama! Now Comes Governing‼
This has been an historic election. There can be no question about that. The election of our first African-American President is a profound event. Despite this country’s greatness, its highest office had remained until November 4, 2008, the exclusive province of white men. That has now changed forever and most Americans, even many who did not vote for Obama, feel a definite pride in our having selected Obama to hold the highest office in the land.
But, while not wanting to rain on anyone’s parade, let’s not think that this election changes everything. I’ve read the comments of many comparing this election to that of John Kennedy in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. Kennedy, Reagan and now Obama have been described as transformational figures. It is true that Kennedy’s triumph, like Obama’s, represented the rise to political power of a new generation, a typically refreshing event even if scary to older voters. And Reagan’s triumph, like Obama’s, occurred during a period of great societal anxiety, reflected in 1980 by the Iran hostage nightmare and in 2008 by two ongoing wars and an economic meltdown, with a nation’s hope that the new president would heal America’s wounds.
Let us not, however, overstate the extent to which Kennedy or Reagan was a truly transformational figure. Kennedy was confronted by the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cuban missile crisis, and turmoil in the area of civil rights that he did not live to address. Indeed, he hardly lived long enough as president to transform very much although the imagery of Camelot long survived his untimely death. And Reagan, while he has remained the darling of the Republican Party through the present, and did lift American spirits for a time, and held office during the collapse of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical empire for which his admirers give him supreme credit, also left a legacy of massive budget deficits, scandal, political and social divisiveness in the country, and the emergence of an international arena devoid of the relative stability of a bipolar world and increasingly characterized by regional instability and world terrorism.
And then there are the sentiments about Obama’s victory of the polemicist Michael Moore, who seems prepared to treat it almost as if it is the second coming. Moore wrote: “An African American has been elected President of the United States! Anything is possible! We can wrestle our economy out of the hands of the reckless rich and return it to the people. Anything is possible! Every citizen can be guaranteed health care. Anything is possible! We can stop melting the polar ice caps. Anything is possible! Those who have committed war crimes will be brought to justice. Anything is possible.”
But let us step back into reality. On a day on which many foreign leaders and common folk throughout the world celebrated Obama’s victory, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced that Russia would deploy a short range missile system on Russian territory bordering Poland and Lithuania. Afghan President Karzai, who had been rebuked by Obama during his world tour over his weak governance of Afghanistan, was perhaps responding in kind by mixing congratulations with a call for an end to American airstrikes that threatened civilian casualties in his country. And Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who aspires to become prime minister, warned that Obama’s stated readiness to talk with Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness. Welcome to the world stage, President-elect Obama!
Meanwhile, the buzz in Washington, D.C. over possible presidential Cabinet appointments involves the names not of fresh faces but of many of the same old retreads. Apparently according to NBC News, among the names in the mix for secretary of state are those of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, who is purportedly angling for the post, former diplomat Richard Holbrooke, outgoing Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel and former Georgia Democratic senator Sam Nunn. Purportedly, Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker are among those being considered for the Treasury post.
Barack Obama, who has shown himself to be a cool, calm, astute politician, smartly sought to damp down expectations for his presidency during his acceptance speech on Tuesday night in Chicago. He said:
"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.
"I promise you - we as a people will get there. There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. …
"What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you."
Issues of immigration reform, health care, energy independence, the growing costs of Medicare and Social Security, let alone the current world wide economic collapse and growing national recession, the related housing crisis, global warming, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and homeland security, remain front and center. Not only are solutions to these issues not readily at hand, but there is no national consensus and there are deep political divisions on the nature of possible solutions to many of them.
One of my criticisms of Obama during the primary season, when I supported Hillary Clinton, was that he spoke majestically of unity, transcending red and blue state divisions, breaking political gridlock in Washington, D.C., and of bringing conflicting interests in American society together, but he offered few insights on how to accomplish those objectives. He will now have to focus on offering concrete solutions to many of these heretofore intractable problems and building successful coalitions to achieve them, as well as using the bully pulpit to attempt to forge a new national unity to the extent possible, while recognizing and accepting that a vibrant, strong, resilient America in which its people are able to enjoy freedom and equality is by its nature a pluralistic society comprising many competing and conflicting social networks and institutions and interest groups.
I’m very excited by Obama’s victory and am elated to have had the opportunity to vote for him for President. Let us, however, balance our excitement and optimism with a strong dose of reality in recognizing that change is an ongoing process, not all change is beneficial, altering the status quo is usually far more difficult than preserving it, and that President-elect Barack Obama, while enormously gifted, is not a magician but a political leader who no doubt shares many of the same human limitations that affect us all.
But, while not wanting to rain on anyone’s parade, let’s not think that this election changes everything. I’ve read the comments of many comparing this election to that of John Kennedy in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. Kennedy, Reagan and now Obama have been described as transformational figures. It is true that Kennedy’s triumph, like Obama’s, represented the rise to political power of a new generation, a typically refreshing event even if scary to older voters. And Reagan’s triumph, like Obama’s, occurred during a period of great societal anxiety, reflected in 1980 by the Iran hostage nightmare and in 2008 by two ongoing wars and an economic meltdown, with a nation’s hope that the new president would heal America’s wounds.
Let us not, however, overstate the extent to which Kennedy or Reagan was a truly transformational figure. Kennedy was confronted by the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cuban missile crisis, and turmoil in the area of civil rights that he did not live to address. Indeed, he hardly lived long enough as president to transform very much although the imagery of Camelot long survived his untimely death. And Reagan, while he has remained the darling of the Republican Party through the present, and did lift American spirits for a time, and held office during the collapse of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical empire for which his admirers give him supreme credit, also left a legacy of massive budget deficits, scandal, political and social divisiveness in the country, and the emergence of an international arena devoid of the relative stability of a bipolar world and increasingly characterized by regional instability and world terrorism.
And then there are the sentiments about Obama’s victory of the polemicist Michael Moore, who seems prepared to treat it almost as if it is the second coming. Moore wrote: “An African American has been elected President of the United States! Anything is possible! We can wrestle our economy out of the hands of the reckless rich and return it to the people. Anything is possible! Every citizen can be guaranteed health care. Anything is possible! We can stop melting the polar ice caps. Anything is possible! Those who have committed war crimes will be brought to justice. Anything is possible.”
But let us step back into reality. On a day on which many foreign leaders and common folk throughout the world celebrated Obama’s victory, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced that Russia would deploy a short range missile system on Russian territory bordering Poland and Lithuania. Afghan President Karzai, who had been rebuked by Obama during his world tour over his weak governance of Afghanistan, was perhaps responding in kind by mixing congratulations with a call for an end to American airstrikes that threatened civilian casualties in his country. And Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who aspires to become prime minister, warned that Obama’s stated readiness to talk with Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness. Welcome to the world stage, President-elect Obama!
Meanwhile, the buzz in Washington, D.C. over possible presidential Cabinet appointments involves the names not of fresh faces but of many of the same old retreads. Apparently according to NBC News, among the names in the mix for secretary of state are those of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, who is purportedly angling for the post, former diplomat Richard Holbrooke, outgoing Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel and former Georgia Democratic senator Sam Nunn. Purportedly, Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker are among those being considered for the Treasury post.
Barack Obama, who has shown himself to be a cool, calm, astute politician, smartly sought to damp down expectations for his presidency during his acceptance speech on Tuesday night in Chicago. He said:
"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.
"I promise you - we as a people will get there. There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. …
"What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you."
Issues of immigration reform, health care, energy independence, the growing costs of Medicare and Social Security, let alone the current world wide economic collapse and growing national recession, the related housing crisis, global warming, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and homeland security, remain front and center. Not only are solutions to these issues not readily at hand, but there is no national consensus and there are deep political divisions on the nature of possible solutions to many of them.
One of my criticisms of Obama during the primary season, when I supported Hillary Clinton, was that he spoke majestically of unity, transcending red and blue state divisions, breaking political gridlock in Washington, D.C., and of bringing conflicting interests in American society together, but he offered few insights on how to accomplish those objectives. He will now have to focus on offering concrete solutions to many of these heretofore intractable problems and building successful coalitions to achieve them, as well as using the bully pulpit to attempt to forge a new national unity to the extent possible, while recognizing and accepting that a vibrant, strong, resilient America in which its people are able to enjoy freedom and equality is by its nature a pluralistic society comprising many competing and conflicting social networks and institutions and interest groups.
I’m very excited by Obama’s victory and am elated to have had the opportunity to vote for him for President. Let us, however, balance our excitement and optimism with a strong dose of reality in recognizing that change is an ongoing process, not all change is beneficial, altering the status quo is usually far more difficult than preserving it, and that President-elect Barack Obama, while enormously gifted, is not a magician but a political leader who no doubt shares many of the same human limitations that affect us all.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama - Grace under Pressure
Which candidate, McCain or Obama, do I trust more to carefully handle an international “incident” and not overreact? Obama.
Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/- posed that question this morning in the below post. He invited email responses and I sent him mine, which appears below his blog.
________________________________________
Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:09 AM | Email | Print | Permalink
About That Crisis
Joe Biden's recent comment about a "generated crisis" to test Barack Obama's mettle brings to mind a counterintuitive thought I've been nursing for a while. If, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack on the United States during the next four years, could it be the case that the hot headed and erratic John McCain would be the more measured in his response and that the preternaturally calm and cool Mr. Obama might be pressured into reacting rashly and imprudently?
Fair or not, as he takes control of managing two wars in a post-9/11 world, Obama will carry with him to the White House the generic public perception of Democrats being soft on national security. Should a national security crisis arise, especially at or near the beginning of his administration, Obama would be under immense, almost unimaginable pressure to respond - and respond forcefully.
McCain would face pressure, too, but one could argue that because he has such strong bona fides on national security and more public trust to handle an international crisis, McCain would have greater latitude and flexibility in crafting a response.
Put another way, if there is an attack on America Obama might be pressured into proving his "toughness," which is something McCain wouldn't necessarily have to do.
Agree or disagree? Email me.
________________________________________
Tom,
I’m a 65 year old, white, Jewish professional originally from New York City but a Californian since 1969. I’m also a lifelong Democrat, liberal but not as much as when I was younger. I give you the demographics so you may put my comments in some perspective.
I used to have more respect for McCain and in 2000 I thought he might be an interesting candidate. But no more. He has proven himself to be erratic and unreliable. I think Joe Klein, in his TIME piece on Sept 4, 2008, “How McCain Makes Obama Conservative,” captured the essence of the candidates.
No, I don’t believe that Obama would prove the more intemperate. Quite the opposite. I understand the “logic” you offer but I don’t think it holds.
First, I think way too much has been made of McCain’s national security experience. Exactly what does it comprise? We know his immature, daredevil activities as a young pilot. We know he reached no serious leadership position in the Navy, unlike his father. He certainly endured years of torture as a POW and for that we all respect and admire him. But he has never been in the Executive Branch. His experience is as a Senator taking positions on this issue and that. I agreed with some of his positions (criticism of Reagan’s dispatch of Marines to Lebanon; support for the first Gulf War; support for Clinton’s activities in the former Yugoslavia). But I don’t see the fact that he took such positions as terribly impressive evidence that he has national security experience. I think of such experience as that accumulated by those making the decisions, be it secretaries of state or defense, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, obviously the President and, at least in the Bush Administration, the Vice President (whether in the public interest or not) and likely others. But not necessarily some U.S. Senator who has supported certain policies. And while McCain’s advocacy for the surge may have turned out to be helpful, his advocacy for the Iraq War was not.
I may be wrong, Tom, and the events are current enough for you to know the facts well, but, as I recall, when Russia invaded Georgia McCain seemed almost ready to pull the trigger, so to speak. Indeed, I believe he was critical of Obama for first suggesting caution. It is true that Obama came to also take a “strong” stand against the Russians and in support of Georgia, but I was more frightened or at least concerned at the outset by McCain’s bellicosity. I admit I’m one of those who thinks the U.S. has to tread carefully in seeking to include in NATO countries that Russia has historically considered buffers between itself and Europe (Germany most of all). Yes, I would like to keep Georgia and Ukraine from falling back under Russian domination but all the talk of including them in NATO is more provocative than I think the U.S. needs to be at this instance. I think McCain has a more aggressive bent toward Russia. I know you and others could argue that a more aggressive bent may cause Russia to back off but I’m not convinced. I think the aggressive bent toward international relations in general taken by the Bush Administration has been in part responsible for the deterioration of our relations with Russia and others.
So, I am not convinced that Obama would feel such intense pressure to show his mettle in the early days of his Administration, given his youthfulness and alleged Democratic softness on national security, that he would overreact while McCain, purportedly confident in his own skin about national security, would be calm and calculating and less likely to be unduly provocative. I think Obama has shown incredible “grace under pressure” throughout this campaign and at many moments when he could have overreacted (and I’m talking about in the campaign, not vis-à-vis foreign affairs) he has remained calm, cool and collected. I think he will be cautious, perhaps too much so for some including his liberal supporters, whether in domestic ventures or foreign affairs if he becomes President. Might I also note that I’m old enough to remember when Republicans accused Democrats of getting Americans into all the wars, not because Democrats were soft on national security but because they tended to be “internationalists” rather than isolationists, a position many Republicans used to embrace (and some, like Buchanan, still do). How the world changes as do the positions of American political parties if one lives long enough!
I initially supported Hillary Clinton and was sorry to see her lose. But I have come to respect and appreciate Obama and even to conclude that he probably has a better chance of winning the Presidency than she would have had had she won the nomination given her high negatives and his ability to stay focused, in control, and to demonstrate an even keeled temperament. I honestly trust his instincts and judgment in foreign policy and in the event of an “incident” while I’ve come to see McCain as, to quote you, hot headed and erratic.
If you’ve gotten this far, thanks for reading.
Donald A. Newman
Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/- posed that question this morning in the below post. He invited email responses and I sent him mine, which appears below his blog.
________________________________________
Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:09 AM | Email | Print | Permalink
About That Crisis
Joe Biden's recent comment about a "generated crisis" to test Barack Obama's mettle brings to mind a counterintuitive thought I've been nursing for a while. If, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack on the United States during the next four years, could it be the case that the hot headed and erratic John McCain would be the more measured in his response and that the preternaturally calm and cool Mr. Obama might be pressured into reacting rashly and imprudently?
Fair or not, as he takes control of managing two wars in a post-9/11 world, Obama will carry with him to the White House the generic public perception of Democrats being soft on national security. Should a national security crisis arise, especially at or near the beginning of his administration, Obama would be under immense, almost unimaginable pressure to respond - and respond forcefully.
McCain would face pressure, too, but one could argue that because he has such strong bona fides on national security and more public trust to handle an international crisis, McCain would have greater latitude and flexibility in crafting a response.
Put another way, if there is an attack on America Obama might be pressured into proving his "toughness," which is something McCain wouldn't necessarily have to do.
Agree or disagree? Email me.
________________________________________
Tom,
I’m a 65 year old, white, Jewish professional originally from New York City but a Californian since 1969. I’m also a lifelong Democrat, liberal but not as much as when I was younger. I give you the demographics so you may put my comments in some perspective.
I used to have more respect for McCain and in 2000 I thought he might be an interesting candidate. But no more. He has proven himself to be erratic and unreliable. I think Joe Klein, in his TIME piece on Sept 4, 2008, “How McCain Makes Obama Conservative,” captured the essence of the candidates.
No, I don’t believe that Obama would prove the more intemperate. Quite the opposite. I understand the “logic” you offer but I don’t think it holds.
First, I think way too much has been made of McCain’s national security experience. Exactly what does it comprise? We know his immature, daredevil activities as a young pilot. We know he reached no serious leadership position in the Navy, unlike his father. He certainly endured years of torture as a POW and for that we all respect and admire him. But he has never been in the Executive Branch. His experience is as a Senator taking positions on this issue and that. I agreed with some of his positions (criticism of Reagan’s dispatch of Marines to Lebanon; support for the first Gulf War; support for Clinton’s activities in the former Yugoslavia). But I don’t see the fact that he took such positions as terribly impressive evidence that he has national security experience. I think of such experience as that accumulated by those making the decisions, be it secretaries of state or defense, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, obviously the President and, at least in the Bush Administration, the Vice President (whether in the public interest or not) and likely others. But not necessarily some U.S. Senator who has supported certain policies. And while McCain’s advocacy for the surge may have turned out to be helpful, his advocacy for the Iraq War was not.
I may be wrong, Tom, and the events are current enough for you to know the facts well, but, as I recall, when Russia invaded Georgia McCain seemed almost ready to pull the trigger, so to speak. Indeed, I believe he was critical of Obama for first suggesting caution. It is true that Obama came to also take a “strong” stand against the Russians and in support of Georgia, but I was more frightened or at least concerned at the outset by McCain’s bellicosity. I admit I’m one of those who thinks the U.S. has to tread carefully in seeking to include in NATO countries that Russia has historically considered buffers between itself and Europe (Germany most of all). Yes, I would like to keep Georgia and Ukraine from falling back under Russian domination but all the talk of including them in NATO is more provocative than I think the U.S. needs to be at this instance. I think McCain has a more aggressive bent toward Russia. I know you and others could argue that a more aggressive bent may cause Russia to back off but I’m not convinced. I think the aggressive bent toward international relations in general taken by the Bush Administration has been in part responsible for the deterioration of our relations with Russia and others.
So, I am not convinced that Obama would feel such intense pressure to show his mettle in the early days of his Administration, given his youthfulness and alleged Democratic softness on national security, that he would overreact while McCain, purportedly confident in his own skin about national security, would be calm and calculating and less likely to be unduly provocative. I think Obama has shown incredible “grace under pressure” throughout this campaign and at many moments when he could have overreacted (and I’m talking about in the campaign, not vis-à-vis foreign affairs) he has remained calm, cool and collected. I think he will be cautious, perhaps too much so for some including his liberal supporters, whether in domestic ventures or foreign affairs if he becomes President. Might I also note that I’m old enough to remember when Republicans accused Democrats of getting Americans into all the wars, not because Democrats were soft on national security but because they tended to be “internationalists” rather than isolationists, a position many Republicans used to embrace (and some, like Buchanan, still do). How the world changes as do the positions of American political parties if one lives long enough!
I initially supported Hillary Clinton and was sorry to see her lose. But I have come to respect and appreciate Obama and even to conclude that he probably has a better chance of winning the Presidency than she would have had had she won the nomination given her high negatives and his ability to stay focused, in control, and to demonstrate an even keeled temperament. I honestly trust his instincts and judgment in foreign policy and in the event of an “incident” while I’ve come to see McCain as, to quote you, hot headed and erratic.
If you’ve gotten this far, thanks for reading.
Donald A. Newman
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Obama and Unity
When Obama emerged on top in Iowa he spoke of Unity. He would heal the divisions in this society, he would bring together disparate interests, he would transcend the blue and red state divide. He would unify the nation. Many of us were unimpressed but enough were taken by him and his rhetoric to carry him to victory over Hillary Clinton.
Now the Democratic National Convention is upon us and Obama and company are still preaching Unity. But this time it’s a plea, a prayer, not to the nation as a whole but merely to Democratic delegates to his own nominating convention to heal the rift between Obama and Hillary supporters and unite behind Obama.
How sad.
Obama may win the national elections in November. But currently, despite all factors pointing to an easy Democratic victory in November, the tracking polls have Obama and McCain running neck and neck. Obama struggled to close the deal in the primaries against Hillary. He’s having even more trouble closing the deal with the general electorate against McCain. Many, including vast numbers of Hillary supporters such as myself, continue to doubt that Obama is ready for prime time. His campaigning since Hillary withdrew has been lackluster. People continue to wonder exactly how he intends to solve the many problems facing America. While he has shown great talent in delivering soaring addresses to large masses of people, he has failed to show a talent for engaging people in small town meetings. In place of his soaring rhetoric is a delivery full of “you know”; in place of a definite cadence is a stammering delivery. The content continues to lack specificity and his flip-flopping has not helped him in developing a coherent message.
Did Democrats make the wrong choice? That’s difficult to say. Obama still is the likely winner in the November elections. And it isn’t as if Hillary Clinton had all the answers either. She failed to put together a coherent campaign strategy and embarrassed herself on a number of occasions, such as with claims to have landed under fire in Bosnia, during the campaign. Then, too, Bill Clinton proved an embarrassment on his own and caused many to fear the role he might play were she to become president, or vice president for that matter.
Nonetheless, many of us would have favored Hillary as the Democratic nominee. Her voice strengthened and her message crystallized over the course of the primaries and by the end she appeared to be the stronger candidate.
Democrats should close ranks behind Obama. But the constant complaints emanating from his campaign and from his supporters, including former Governor Wilder of Virginia, that Hillary and Bill are the main obstacles to unity are poppycock, to use a socially acceptable term. Most Hillary supporters are quite educated and informed. They are not waiting for some signal or sign from Hillary in order to support Obama. They are troubled by the campaign he is running as well as his lack of experience and are simply hesitant in their support. Ultimately most will vote for Obama. Despite McCain’s maverick label, they will see McCain as continuing too many of Bush’s policies and as a bedrock conservative when it comes to several crucial social issues.
But Obama had better get his act together, stop blaming Hillary and Bill, offer specifics to the voters on how to solve major issues now, and learn how to connect better with that so-called “average” voter, whatever the voter’s gender, age, ethnicity or race.
Now the Democratic National Convention is upon us and Obama and company are still preaching Unity. But this time it’s a plea, a prayer, not to the nation as a whole but merely to Democratic delegates to his own nominating convention to heal the rift between Obama and Hillary supporters and unite behind Obama.
How sad.
Obama may win the national elections in November. But currently, despite all factors pointing to an easy Democratic victory in November, the tracking polls have Obama and McCain running neck and neck. Obama struggled to close the deal in the primaries against Hillary. He’s having even more trouble closing the deal with the general electorate against McCain. Many, including vast numbers of Hillary supporters such as myself, continue to doubt that Obama is ready for prime time. His campaigning since Hillary withdrew has been lackluster. People continue to wonder exactly how he intends to solve the many problems facing America. While he has shown great talent in delivering soaring addresses to large masses of people, he has failed to show a talent for engaging people in small town meetings. In place of his soaring rhetoric is a delivery full of “you know”; in place of a definite cadence is a stammering delivery. The content continues to lack specificity and his flip-flopping has not helped him in developing a coherent message.
Did Democrats make the wrong choice? That’s difficult to say. Obama still is the likely winner in the November elections. And it isn’t as if Hillary Clinton had all the answers either. She failed to put together a coherent campaign strategy and embarrassed herself on a number of occasions, such as with claims to have landed under fire in Bosnia, during the campaign. Then, too, Bill Clinton proved an embarrassment on his own and caused many to fear the role he might play were she to become president, or vice president for that matter.
Nonetheless, many of us would have favored Hillary as the Democratic nominee. Her voice strengthened and her message crystallized over the course of the primaries and by the end she appeared to be the stronger candidate.
Democrats should close ranks behind Obama. But the constant complaints emanating from his campaign and from his supporters, including former Governor Wilder of Virginia, that Hillary and Bill are the main obstacles to unity are poppycock, to use a socially acceptable term. Most Hillary supporters are quite educated and informed. They are not waiting for some signal or sign from Hillary in order to support Obama. They are troubled by the campaign he is running as well as his lack of experience and are simply hesitant in their support. Ultimately most will vote for Obama. Despite McCain’s maverick label, they will see McCain as continuing too many of Bush’s policies and as a bedrock conservative when it comes to several crucial social issues.
But Obama had better get his act together, stop blaming Hillary and Bill, offer specifics to the voters on how to solve major issues now, and learn how to connect better with that so-called “average” voter, whatever the voter’s gender, age, ethnicity or race.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
An Open E-mail to David Gergen
I wrote the below e-mail to David Gergen after reading Sam Stein’s article in the Huffington Post, “Gergen: McCain Using Code Words To Attack Obama As ‘Uppity’” and the accompanying video of David Gergen on This Week on
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/03/gergen-mccain-is-using-co_n_116605.html
David,
I've watched and listened to you on TV since you and Shields participated in civil discourse on the McNeil/Lehrer Report. I've tended to appreciate your calm, cautious commentary but in recent times I have found you far less interesting and informative, particularly in your service as one of the political analysts on CNN.
I caught a video of your recent comments on This Week on McCain's use of code words against Obama. Please, David, take more time to reflect on what you say. As George Will sought to remark, McCain was asked about affirmative action (and it appears gave a response not entirely different from Obama's in speaking out against quotas) and he honestly answered. His comments, to you, were code words? My gosh, how far you have drifted from the kind of careful observation I used to find helpful.
Frankly, as a 60-something professional, former political scientist, and former Hillary supporter, I am not impressed by Obama. His recent flip flopping, whether on public financing of campaigns, FISA, the 4th Amendment, handling Iran, or off-shore oil drilling, has left me cold. For many Americans, myself included, we're still searching to learn who he is; he remains relatively unknown, a sudden star on the horizon.
I believe that the constant analyses, such as yours, that suggest that race is the key to the election are not helping him. Race is absolutely an important factor but I truly believe that the more his defenders, including you, David, whether you admit you've come to defend him or not, and others suggest that McCain or others are using race to defeat Obama, the more voters will be turned off by Obama and his candidacy. I would suggest, albeit without firm empirical data at this point, that many Americans are tired of having race thrown in their faces every time someone strongly criticizes Obama. Again, as Will noted, the Republican theme that the Democratic candidate is an elitist did not start with Obama, but when critics attempt to make that charge against Obama many of his defenders immediately suggest there is a racial component. In your case, you claim it is a code word apparently for an “uppity black”. David, please. Enough of this shallow analysis. Recognize that while Obama bested Hillary, albeit because of her campaign's ridiculous failure to contest the caucus states, many voters who hardly participated in the Democratic primaries are now focusing on the Democratic nominee and having difficulty discerning who he is, what he stands for, and whether he is someone they can trust as President, and race, while not irrelevant, isn't necessarily the determinative factor.
Monday, August 4, 2008
The Molten Core of Barack: Why Obama Can't Win
I recommend that you read Alex Castellanos' article on the Huffington Post.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I made the following comment on the Post:
Alex, I realize you're a professional consultant to the McCain campaign. I also realize you will be flamed no end here on the Huffington Post. Nonetheless, I think your article captures some of the reasons many Democrats, particularly those who supported Hillary Clinton, are still having great difficulty in embracing Obama. His flip-flopping on issues has been incredible, whether on public financing of campaigns, FISA, the Supreme Court's 4th amendment decision on guns, opening the strategic oil reserve, off-shore drilling, or Iran. I do not share your views on Obama's personality but I do think that he is not helping a nation develop a sense of who he is and that he can be trusted.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I made the following comment on the Post:
Alex, I realize you're a professional consultant to the McCain campaign. I also realize you will be flamed no end here on the Huffington Post. Nonetheless, I think your article captures some of the reasons many Democrats, particularly those who supported Hillary Clinton, are still having great difficulty in embracing Obama. His flip-flopping on issues has been incredible, whether on public financing of campaigns, FISA, the Supreme Court's 4th amendment decision on guns, opening the strategic oil reserve, off-shore drilling, or Iran. I do not share your views on Obama's personality but I do think that he is not helping a nation develop a sense of who he is and that he can be trusted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)