Unqualified. Equally.
The Dem race has degenerated into something out of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Hillary invades the French castle with her Trojan Rabbit forgetting to put her men inside. Obama farts in her general direction and catapults cows over the wall. Meanwhile the media has played this like it’s a perpetual Michigan/Ohio State game, or worse, endless American Idol. Part of my frustration with all of this is that we deserve no better.
The measure of our candidates has become their level of brand management. In that regard, Obama beats Hillary hands-down. Hillary’s camp is nothing but chaos and has been since the outright failure of its “I’m the incumbent” approach. That Hillary failed to adapt and that she returns Mark Penn’s phone calls is reason enough to disqualify her from office. Hillary should have kicked Penn to the curb 10 minutes after the Iowa primary results were finalized.
As for Obama, he’s the master of brand discipline and as far his actual record is concerned, an absolute master of sleight of hand. Joe Wilson has said it better than anyone I’ve read to date. Here’s an excerpt:
“I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama’s distortion of George Bush’s folly into Hillary Clinton’s responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn’t there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton’s position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.
“There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently (than Hillary) in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much.”
Obama has never been tested in a campaign against a real Republican (his opponent for his senate seat was the last-minute addition of lunatic Alan Keyes). Further, his deliberate strategy to avoid going on the record for anything even remotely controversial is as conniving as anything Ms. Clinton has been accused of. If we’re talking about a consistent set of criteria, one based on fitness, integrity and achievement, Obama is every bit as unqualified as Ms. Clinton. Thanks for playing.
Which gets me to my real point, which is how utterly disappointing it is to be faced with once again defending one of two, weak, fatally flawed candidates at a time when we absolutely cannot afford another minute of politics as usual. McCain and the Pugs are going to tear them up, no matter who wins. That’s because the premise of both candidates is not, as Groom succinctly puts it, “Rome is burning,” it’s “don’t worry, be happy.” We’re to blame because we’re just not serious, or in denial, or so media-addled that we’ll fall for the slogans, tone and lighting, every time. Maybe we just don’t want to know.
The fact is there is no real change in either Obama’s or Clinton’s platforms. It’s politics as usual, despite the rhetorical bombast. There’s nothing creative, courageous or groundbreaking in proposing impractical compromise heath care programs that cut insurance companies even bigger slices of the pie. Neither has proposed an energy Manhattan Project, despite the overwhelming evidence that we’re going dark in about 15 years. Neither has a clue what to do about our financial situation, suggesting only that we tinker with NAFTA. Neither actively recognizes the damage the past eight years have done to our Constitution or plans to roll back the Junta by reversing its policies and putting the bastards in jail where they belong.
Worst of all, neither have the integrity to tell the American people that real solutions to any of these issues are going to cost real money and force real sacrifices on a level unheard of in our history. Yeah, I know about that “malaise” thing that cost Carter his presidency. I wish what we were dealing with were just the malaise of spirit that concerned Carter in the 70s. But we’re not. We have really hard choices to make and need real leadership to help us make them, but the choice we’re making is between Brands O and H of a minimally functional product.
Posted: March 3rd, 2008 under Aargh, Bushco, Democratic Debates, Do The Right Thing, Health Care, Hillary, McCain, Obama, VOTE!, We Are the Enemy.
Comments: 6
Comments
Comment from Pat
Time: March 4, 2008, 9:15 am
I agree, they are both flawed. For instance, Hillary voted in favor of declaring a sovereign country’s army a terrorist organization, and Obama handled the situation by not voting at all. Both of these were equally cowardly acts.
If these two cannot make the right decision now because of their fear of political consequences, what kind of decisions will they make when they are in office?
I plan on voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she might be, because the republicans only offer more of the same crap that we’ve had for the last 7 years. I just hope that having the position of POTUS will give him or her a spine.
Comment from timr
Time: March 4, 2008, 10:05 am
LC, so Obama’s intro into politics on the south side of Chicago by being a community organizer means nothing? Hey, Chicago is and has been for more than 60 years the home of the longest lasting political machine. Obama went up against some of the dirtiest politics in the country. I think that having survived in Chicago, and what he has done in organizing his campaign in all the state primaries-not writing off the red states like Clinton did, or do we continue the governing from the base policies of gwb-his grass roots efforts have shown up well in Texas. Both Obama and Clinton had rallies in SA on the same day, at the same time. Clinton’s was, while enthusiastic, no match for the energy-or numbers of people-that Obama had. Overall I think that Obama will win in Texas.
One other note, there is a movement afoot, at least here in So Texas, to get repigs to vote for Obama, rather than for McCain who does not need the votes. No one, or at least very few, are worrying about the down ticket races, and there are some really good ones. The only reason that repigs might not want to vote against Clinton by voting for Obama, at least in my district, is that there are 2 repigs vying for Ciro Rodriguez(d) seat. So it will be interesting to see what happens tonite-Obama has heavily outorganized Clinton for the Caucus voting after the polls close. Question, why is MSNBC starting election coverage so damn early tonite? 5pm CST. It is a very good thing that DST starts on the 9th of march instead of on the 2nd, because that could confuse people.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: March 4, 2008, 11:40 am
timr: Obama has out-organized Clinton into the ground, no question. He’s inspirational, no question. I’m not as enamored with Obama’s Chicago roots as you are, but for the sake of argument, I’ll accept your point. My issue, which covers the both of them, has to do with the notion of change and their platforms. They’re absolutely ordinary and inadequate. Now the argument can and has been made that if their platforms were really as groundbreaking and as revolutionary as the times require, they’d be relegated to the same fates and Kucinich and Ron Paul. Maybe so. But that leaves us with faith as a platform for making a choice. Faith that once elected, they’ll do the “right things.” One can argue that’s always the case. What the line? “Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice (sputter, sputter), won’t get fooled again.” 
I know what Hillary will do, and a lot of it, not all of it is on-target. In my mind, it will be too little, too late, causing too much public hew and cry, which is why I think her ultimately not qualified. As for Obama, I’[m not so sure. I see very little in his record where he has stood up and fought for his beliefs when it came into conflict with his career goals (read Wilson post). I know that’s a bomb-throwing statement around here these days, but it is his record of ducking when it’s politically expedient that concerns me. He’s better at it than Clinton, because it doesn’t stick to him–but he runs for cover nonetheless. It’s the walk-the-talk thing for me, and given what I believe will be the ultimate outcome of this race (Obama is the nominee), I’ll restate the headline of a post I made a number of weeks ago, I hope you’re right.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 4, 2008, 5:14 pm
I say we should separate how candidates run for a nomination, then how then run in a general election, and then how they govern. There is no consistency in any of these stages with any past successful candidate that I can think of.
In fact, with the exception of Bush and Clinton, most presidents rise to a larger call when they win the presidency. LBJ comes to mind as does Ronald Reagan. Carter was probably the most consistent over all three stages. Bush was the opposite of what he campaigned on. But I think the Bush era in politics is over for a generation.
As I see it, Obama is holding his own on the kitchen sink strategy. It’s the gutter strategy that comes next that will tell if he has the resourcefulness to withstand the mud.
Comment from timr
Time: March 5, 2008, 10:26 am
Re experience. Remember that Lincoln had only 2 years as a congressman before being elected prez. So, like the interviewer who asked Clinton campers, what exactly is Clintons foreign policy experience, besides being the junior senator from NY. A long silence ensued
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: March 6, 2008, 1:15 pm
All due respect timr, but we’ve heard the Lincoln comparison before and for me, it doesn’t fly. Lincoln’s job, while difficult and crucial to the success of the union, was purely domestic. There was no foreign policy to speak of, no interlocking economies, no instant communications, no global lethality. Add those elements to a deteriorating domestic economy, the abrogation of our constitutional rights, our environmental challenges–sorry, we need more than what Obama’s outlined. It was a much simpler world, and much simpler job.
Write a comment