If Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States I will not be happy, but I know that America will endure and even find ways to thrive.
If Barack Obama is elected, I cannot say the same with much confidence. Although my indelible belief in the quality and character of Americans in general gives me great hope, I think the odds are at least 50/50 that an Obama Presidency will be a wrong turn down a long and dangerous road for our great nation.
If my pessimistic prognostication comes true, those who voted for him will be equally to blame. In his diatribes on the need for change he and his audiences chant “Yes we can.” Interesting use of the plural Senator, but might I remind you of the short attention span of the American voter. If history is our teacher, the “Yeswecans” who are so prevalent today will be raptured back to indifference the morning of January 21, 2009.
The tidal wave of support that put a spring in his step and a song on his tongue for two years will be gone. So what’s a President to do? Follow through on his campaign pledges, of course. Except that there are precious few of them. In fact, those that he’s making are suddenly under fire as well. Samantha Power, his recently resigned foreign policy advisor, mentioned that President Obama may not feel bound by his campaign promise to pull out of Iraq in 2009. Or perhaps he should put an end to NAFTA, given that he’s an outspoken critic of the agreement. However, stories abound that he may be using back channels to communicate to the Canadians that he’s more bark than bite on the topic.
The phrase he borrowed from Deval Patrick, the recently elected Governor of Massachusetts, “I am not asking you to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations,” would be a remarkably conservative turn of phrase if delivered by a conservative politician. Delivered by Senator Obama it is his first line of defense for a failed administration. “The people chose not to take a chance on their aspirations and to accept the status quo,” he’ll respond. He is depending on a mobilized America. Which, again, would be fine, if it were part of a consistent conservative philosophy of accountability, consequences and empowerment. But when delivered by a big government Democrat, it is a sleight of hand designed to keep you from the truth, which is that he is neither authentic nor substantive.
Senator Clinton’s complaints that he doesn’t have political experience do not, on their face, bother me. His lack of executive experience bothers me a little but what bothers me most is his not exercising authority during his campaign. On at least three occasions (his wife’s comments about never being proud of America before, why he no longer wears an American flag lapel pin and his associations with Pastor Jeremiah Wright) he has had the opportunity to speak swiftly and decisively to the matter at hand and put the issue to rest. In none of the cases did he. Rather he chose to obfuscate the issues with a barrage of verbiage. I honestly believe that he thinks he can speak himself out of any corner without ever taking decisive action. This is a troubling attribute in a Presidential candidate. There will be occasions requiring swift, aggressive, globally unpopular decisions.
I wonder if he even knows what the job entails. His response to the Hillary Clinton commercial wherein Hillary shows herself answering a ringing hot line at the White House at 3am was that it was fear-mongering. I disagree. That’s the job of the President. The commercial was an accurate portrayal of what the President does. Had he said, “I just want to know why it took her six rings to answer the most important phone in the world,” that would have been a valid comment.
Obama’s stated willingness to negotiate one on one with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba also demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the responsibilities associated with holding the most powerful job in the world.
The job of the President of the United States involves confrontation, at home and abroad. Yet Senator Obama eschews confrontation at nearly every turn. He avoids confrontation on the campaign trail by saying that he is above running a negative campaign. He avoids confrontation by not saying publicly that his wife mis-spoke. He plans to avoid confrontation by sitting down and making-nice with leaders of rogue nations instead of standing up to them.
Senator Obama’s modus operandi is to be liked. He likes to be liked. He believes he can be liked by everyone and that once liked, he can then exert power gently. This is the truest failure of his lack of executive experience. He hasn’t yet ascertained the fallacy of his thinking and he hasn’t learned to hone his instincts for making the tough decision even when it’s unpopular.
What vision does Senator Obama have for America other than Americans be popular in the world and that he get credit for the change in our perception? He was quoted in the November 29, 2007, Time Magazine saying, “Ultimately the process [of running for President] reveals aspects of an individual’s character and judgment. If you think about past Presidents, probably those two things along with vision are the most important aspects of a presidency.” Clearly he acknowledges the importance of having a vision for America. Yet he says, “We are the change we seek.” “We” are his vision. He is calling on us to find our own way, to make our own change. Is that the message his supporters are hearing?
Let me add that this extended battle with Hillary Clinton is working to his advantage. The Clinton/Obama battles are providing a shield for Obama to hide behind. Hillary bemoans his lack of experience while lacking executive experience herself. Hillary attacks his health care plan for not covering ALL Americans and America sees only minor differences of degree. Obama’s policy postulates are thin, but he can get away with making no creative initiatives by simply responding to Clinton’s proposals. He isn’t being forced to show any of his cards.
Republicans who are watching this race already know they won’t vote for either Clinton or Obama but still watch with endless fascination how the Democratic Party may be loading the gun with which it kills itself. Likely Democratic voters are watching the process like a coming train wreck but view the candidate’s policies as nearly identical given Obama’s proclivity to hide behind his rhetoric and his opponent.
A general election showdown should force him to create an agenda upon which to run and which will likely be exposed as insubstantial. Until then, he can spend his days addressing delegate counts and Democratic Party politics, neither of which contributes to a great presidency.
What would a President Obama do on January 21, 2009? How do you translate hype into a to-do list? For a man uncomfortable making decisions, with no vision of the America he’d like to create and no policy mandates from the people, I fear we’ll see more of what we’ve already seen—a man who loves the adulation more than the work, and America will drift rudderlessly into the next decade.








But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium.
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
March 19, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Mr. Kleber:
I think you make some remarkable assumptions. By listening to the same type of media hype you’re decrying, you have pieced together the identity of a man, one primarily based on suspicion rather than fact, psychoanalyzing him and using his popularity to label him as a guy who likes to be liked.
Upon entering congress, Barack promised to help get rid of corruption. And he passed concrete legislation about transparency in government.
It’s remarkable how many people have bought into the spin machines at work. Barack is a compelling speaker, so he is labeled “all talk”, and millions of people gladly accept it without actually reviewing his policy decisions and accomplishments.
Message – Delete
Further, I don’t think I could disagree more with the idea that it is weak-willed to engage in diplomacy with enemy nations. Self-important chest thumping and hollering gets us nowhere. Wait, scratch that, it does get us somewhere: it gets us to hatred, violence, and instability. But xenophobia has never been this consumer-friendly, right? Because in the real world, when you have a problem, communication is never the answer: we ought to ignore the other person and resign ourselves to hate.
That’s the old mentality, that’s what we pessimistically and self-importantly call “reality,” and it’s that ridiculous mindset that Obama and his supporters want to change.
Message – Delete
Obama is a beloved figure, and for many people, that is due to his superficial appearance; on that point there can be no dispute. But please don’t be swept up in the equally superficial generalizations and spin. Look at his records and achievements and weigh them on their own merit. Fighting superficial support with superficial criticism will get us nowhere.
March 19, 2008 at 10:27 pm
A lot of this note is all talk and no substance, just the sort of superficial “diatribes” you’re railing against. I was hoping that in constructing a piece of writing on Obama, you would do some substantive research on what he has done in the past and why millions of Americans (whom you would probably scorn as apathetic, stupid, and under-educated…and therefore whose opinions are insubstantial because their hopes are so easily stirred by charismatic speeches and will never amount to substantial policy– to which I reply that America is a DEMOCRACY, a fact you can never take for granted for better or for worse–) anyway I sincerely believe he has the power to get America out of a rut.
April 28, 2008 at 8:24 am
WELL SAID BRIAN AND JOHN. Sen. Obama will give UNITED in The United States of American new meaning.