Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
OK, I will bite. BO was a summer associate, still in Law school, at Sidley. He was a INTERN, and no lawyer really knows the ropes until 3 years AFTER law school.
Academic experience does not always do well in the real world. You don't get paid to ponder and theorize from an Ivory Tower in a private practice. Yes, BO, did some "community" work for Rizko, who was indicted for fraud on the very public housing project contracts BO was assigned to review, as a low-ranking associate. Even BO had to bow to the Daily machine, when push came to shove. They eat appeasers for lunch there on the really important stuff, the stuff that has big bucks on the line for them.
Overstating his experience on the local and State level, does not mean what worked there will fly at the Federal level. I don't deny he has done some good things, but overstating his resume does not qualify him as someone with the experince to govern. Being a good organizer is only part of what you need to succed. Nothing he has done, especially since is very brief time in the Senate, indicates he has the depth of experience and understanding needed for the big chair, or that he understands the difference in governing vs organizing or legislating. . His absence on important votes, and is mis-informed statements and lame excuses for voting to authorize the Iraq war, sans timetables, three times is a good indication of how he will compromise his own principles and back down when challenged. His position on Pakistan is just as appaulling, as Hillary's. However, I will also assume that his understanding of the country he spent some time in as a boy, will have sentimental value, and an appreciation of the culture, but that does not mean it qualifes him to deal with heads of state, especially the dicators who will likely dismiss him.
Al Gore got a Nobel Prize. THAT is far more impressive than a Grammy and best selling books, which indicates popularity, not experience or competence, or necessarily quality. Your post only confirms that you are more taken with the cult of personality than with the acutal ability to implement and realize that Hope you have. Sorry, I need more substance.
As a lifelong Democrat and a champion of civil rights and gender rights, I am saddened by the campaign in South Carolina. How strange to see my Senator, Hillary Clinton, adopt the mantle of Lee Atwater's "got ya!" politics. How sad for all America who thought the Democrats would be a welcome change from the lies and back alley tricks of the Bush Administration. No wonder S.C.'s newspaper, the State, endorsed Sen. Obama as a leader who could point us in a new direction. Shame on President Clinton, Shame on Senator Clinton you have run an embarrassing, reactionary campaign. This is not what America is looking for or needs in 2007.
After reading so many letters and seeing so much rancor within the Democratic party, I'm starting to have genuine fears for what will happen in the general election. I am especially disturbed by some of the comments made by Obama supporters that they will under if she wins the nomination. Some said that they would vote for McCain (if he's the Republican candidate), others will sit the election out. I just need to ask any of them if they learned a single thing from the past eight years under Bush.
The results of elections are not just about making a point with your vote - there are real life, painful consequences. I know a lot of people who voted for Nader because they wanted to send "a message" about the two party system. They didn't see Al Gore as being any different from Bush and knew that even though Nader would certainly not win the election, and that Bush would very likely win, they case their votes for Nader. What resulted was a needless war, the decemating of our economic security, the Supreme Court tilted now heavily to the right, a setback of years in getting a handle on our environmental issues, the assault on our civil liberties... the list seems painfully endless.
The point that I'm trying to make is that there can be huge consequences to voting for an "ideal" when there is no chance for that that candidate can win. Nader supporters were all too quick to discount the differences between Bush and Gore, but we certainly know better now. And make no mistake in thinking that the Republicans, for all their bickering right now, will not fall right into line behind whatever candidate squeeks out a victory in the primaries. And don't fool yourself into thinking that selecting Obama will render the Democrats immune from the Republican slime machine. Don't forget how they were able to make Gore look look like a sanctamonious egghead against the more congenial Bush, or how they managed to turn support away from a genuine war hero (Kerry) in favor of a draft dodger who never finished his time in the reserves. No matter who the Democrats pick, the right-wing machine will be read and waiting to chew them up and spit them out.
However difficult and sometime ugly the primary process becomes, it's critical for those who believe in the basic ideals of the Democratic party to come together after our candidate is selected and support them every step of the way. Because while a few religious conservatives might stay home if their candidate isn't "ideal" the rest will surely come out against whoever the Democrats put into the fight. Unless we want another four years of Republican incompetance in the White House, we need to stop acting like a bunch of school kids and vote with our heads and much as our hearts. Otherwise we might as well just hand them the keys to the White House and give up now.
This is a response to some of the comments about whether Obama is "qualified" or what his experience is vis-a-vis his competitor(s).
The most qualified candidates, at least on paper, would probably be Mitt Romney, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson. Their resumes are all very impressive.
But Romney just causes people to gag -- including, it seems, his fellow Republican candidates -- and Biden and Richardson, for whatever reasons, failed to excite or inspire enough followers.
When we elect a president, we're not electing a resume. We're selecting a person to trust with our future. We're looking for a certain intangible, unquantifiable quality. And yes, I know we've chosen several terrible leaders this way, but we've also picked some good ones. FDR, for example, was seen as something of a lightweight early on, but he had that intangible, unquantifiable leadership quality.
I don't know if Obama is simply the flavor of the month or the guy with what it takes to inspire and lead this country. For now, I'm backing him; I have confidence in his values and his judgment and I think his various experiences in life, though not quite the same as those outlined in Mitt Romney's resume, count for something.
(this is also a very belated response to the Gloria Steinem criticism that Obama would be nowhere if he were a woman with the same resume. First, that's not true -- plenty of women have come from "nowhere" to win elections and become political leaders. And secondly, of course, it's not really about the resume.)
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
