...[I]f experience mattered most in life, Babe Ruth would have been a winning baseball manager, Dick Cheney would be considered a visionary, IBM would have led the personal computer revolution, and both Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover would be judged among our greatest presidents whereas Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson would be among the worst.
So if history tells us that experience sometimes matters, sometimes doesn't, how else can we compare the competence and ability of our leading presidential candidates?
The best gauge may be to examine the one experience in which all three of them started from the same place: running for president. And on that account, the one with the least experience has hands down done the best.
From money to message to campaign organizing to drawing voters, Obama has outpaced his two rivals and in fact has pioneered a number of new strategies that future candidates will dissect and study in the years ahead. His campaign has become the Apple or Google of American politics [Leonard Steinhorn, "Obama's Run a Great Campaign--That Says Something, Doesn't It?" History News Network, 2008.03.03].
Build a broad base of small donors, focus on grass-roots organization, use technology, sell a consistent message, stick with it, work like a dog, and come out of two months of primaries ahead of the erstwhile presumptive nominee in delegates, popular votes, and campaign donations -- sounds like a heck of a résumé to me.
Dr. Steinhorn (he teaches communication and history at American University) agrees with me that good campaign performance doesn't guarantee good Presidential performance. However, he concludes, "for voters who do their comparison shopping, it's instructive to see how each of these candidates – given their different life experiences – has met the exact same challenge."
Obama reminds me of a revival type preacher. Get the people fired up, have some of them faint even in their excitement, essentially give an altar call to "come to Obama" and I will save your souls (borrowed this phrase from his wife). Get a catch phrase that epecially targets young people who are by nature idealistic and want to change the world for good. It is admittedly working for him.
ReplyDeleteBut when the nitty-gritty of campaigning, meaning having to spout more than feel good phrases of change and hope, and I think he will sink.
What do you think then about McCain and the way he is running his campaign by demanding that his people run a respectful campaign?
Nonnie
Again, I find it amusing that it's the Christians in the room who take issue with Obama's preacherly, revival-style delivery, while I, the non-churchgoer, don't mind. As Dr. Steinhorn says, "Those who deride Obama for running a campaign of religious fervor miss the point: it's this passionate faith in Obama that has enabled him to organize on the ground in the same way Bush's religious supporters gave him an edge in 2004."
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with being able to communicate effectively and inspiringly. Good communication skills ought to be a pre-requisite for candidates for public office ;-)
Obama's policy positions are online, in the news, available for the reading. He can offer as much detail in his campaign promises as Clinton. The point Dr. Steinhorn makes is that, in addition to a thorough comparison of actual policy positions, there is some proof in the pudding of a campaign that shows what kind of managerial muscle a candidate can flex. Clinton started from the top and worked her way to a fight for her life. Obama started from very little and worked his way up to be a nationwide contender. Obama's producing results that Clinton can't.
As for McCain, well, I haven't paid much attention to the Republicans yet. But I'll say this: if he can hold his people to his word, that he wants a respectful campaign, then more power to him. Honestly, I think an election battle between McCain and Obama would be spectacular. Those two men could lead the country in a national conversation that might actually get us somewhere, that might actually focus on policies and straight talk rather than the divisive politics of personality that would come from a battle involving the Clinton machine. It's not the Kucinich-Paul contest I might have dreamed of, but Obama and McCain debating could make for some good public discourse. Bring it on!
Not to say there is anything wrong with Obama's revival style speaking - I listened to him and I'm impressed. I just don't agree with his liberal ideas and how they would affect this country or me.
ReplyDeleteAnd that, Anon, I can respect. (But keep reading... maybe I can persuade you! ;-) )
ReplyDelete