LUCILLE: Follow the Follower

I hear the snide remarks from right wing co-workers and friends, sneering at Obama's "inexperience" and his call for change. What does he know?, they cackle. His ideas are too liberal, too unpatriotic, too stupid. And, according to them - and Fox News - he's certainly not a leader.

Oh, really? There are some influential, high level people in this country who don't think his ideas are so bad. Let's just see who's leading and who's following whom.

What about Obama's idea that we should be dealing with Iran instead of simply baiting them? "Appeasement!" they screamed, when Mr. Obama suggested it. That was, of course, until George Bush decided to open a dialog with that charter member of the Axis of Evil in mid July. And, lo and behold (as my old history teacher, Mr Mieli would say), the Bush White House had decided to send their #3 State Dept. official to Iran for multilateral talks. Who's following? Who's leading?

Right around the same time, John McCain suddenly discovered Afghanistan, the resurgence of the Taliban and that more Americans were dying there than in Iraq. "More troops to Afghanistan!" he proclaimed, following  the lead of Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's . . just one year after Obama had proposed it. Who's the leader here?

You may have seen Obama's ads about corporate greed, chastising executives who are "making more in 10 minutes" than most Americans do in a year". Suddenly, Mr. "I'm-against-a-homeowner-bailout" McCain changed his tune and began shrieking about "corporate greed" himself -  even, finally, endorsing that selfsame homeowners' bailout, as Obama  already had. Who's the leader? Who's the follower?

While John McCain whined about the press' attention to Obama, especially the huge crowds he drew on his European trip, for many American children it was perhaps the first time they had seen American flags being waved instead of burned overseas. It was a trip, by the way,  that McCain criticized him for taking, after criticizing him for not going to Europe (He was for it before he was against it?).  And why else would Europeans treat Obama like, as Frank Rich called him, a "president-in-waiting" unless they saw in him vision, eloquence, the ability to move and influence people, his obvious grasp of what is important to the rest of the world (Can you picture yourself saying that about Bush without laughing?). Or, just maybe, they just recognized a leader when they saw one.

Mr. International Expert John McCain tried to denounce Obama as unfit for the Presidency while he continued to make major errors (before his handlers started keeping him in the Straight Talk Express, away from the press); jumbling the chronology of the Anbar Awakening, confusing Sunni with Shiia, imagining an Iraq-Pakistan border and still refusing to admit his stroll through a "safe" Bagdad market was shielded by helicopter cover and heavy armor. A leader ready to handle the hot line?

Everyone on the Right (and the media) wants to know when Obama will admit he was "wrong" about the surge. What I want to know is when the press and the rest of America will ask John McCain to admit he was wrong about the war being "paid for by the Iraqis", how it would be fast and that it would produce little "bloodletting" by Americans. In this case John McCain did lead - right into a quagmire and huge deficit (more on that later).

And, finally, what else has Obama suggested that either Bush or Bush-lite have adopted?

How about getting the troops out of Iraq?

McCain has repeatedly said that any timetable for withdrawal is an admission of defeat. Then, he did a quick pirouette, suggesting he'd have the troops out by 2013. Sounds like a timetable and a quick retreat.

But what is George Bush calling for now (as well as the Iraqi government), and McCain supporting? It's not a timeline for withdrawal, to hear them talk. No, no, no, no, no, no. First, it was a the sci-fi sounding "time horizon" (I could have sworn George Bush went through a Star Gate for that one). Then, it became "aspirational goals." Ah; adding a smidgen of religiousity to obfuscate - how Republican!

But Bush's plan to  withdraw American forces -  from "cities and villages" in June 2009 and, in December 31, 2011, withdrawing combat troops altogether - sounds incredibly close to Obama's call for a mid 2010 withdrawal  . . .  yeah, his timetable.  Call it what you will - time horizon, aspirational goal, bobbaly boop - but calling for the pullout troops by a certain date is calling for a timetable - and  virtually the same thing that Obama has been promising to do.

That's a sure sign that someone is leading.

Any question who?

August 26, 2008: Eric provided a link to this great explanation for the soaring oil prices that has nothing to do with speculators or the lack of offshore drilling, but with the surge.The surge? Oh, yes. Click, read and weep.

Click here to see why oil is over $200 a barrel.

Comments

[Draz]

Once again, too many words and too lttle speaking to the issue. Obama lacks experience. The discussion is experience, not his opinions, no matter how influetntial they may be. He is a rookie, a generalist, a big picture, gloss over the details, mess it up and run rhetorist, who at best will set us back 100 years and at worst, make us all "citizens of the world" Let the world have him. I don't like McCain either, but the discussion is Obama's experience, please don't answer in your usual fashion, which is to hurl snowballs in so many unaimed directions, the kids run for home.

[Eric]

Nicely done, Lucille.

@Draz: You seem to have missed the point. Obama may lack experience on paper, but he has shown that his vision and understanding more than make up for it. That's the point of Lucille's post. Obama, a man with less experience, is putting out ideas that people with more experience are copying.

This whole "he lacks experience" thing is such a pile of bullshit by the way. What was George Bush's experience? How about Clinton? Reagan? Kennedy? How about Lincoln? George Washington? When it comes down to it, the only people in history that have had experience being president are those that have already served a term. So you really need to think a little more critically here because all it sounds like you're doing is clinging to some bunk talking point.

"He is a rookie, a generalist, a big picture, gloss over the details, mess it up and run rhetorist, who at best will set us back 100 years and at worst, make us all "citizens of the world""

Rookie? Everyone in this race is a rookie at being president. The only difference is that McCain has run and lost a presidential campaign already thanks to his good pal GWB who threw him under the bus with whisper campaigns of black babies and what not. Both candidates have spent a good amount of time in politics. So you need to clarify that "snowball" there.

Generalist? If you want specifics, they're all there on his web page. Another "snowball" from the man who criticizes throwing "snowballs". Nice.

Big picture? Um, so you would rather have a president who looks at the little picture? Do you even know what the president does? Yet another "snowball" and another missed target...

"gloss over the details". Ok, so this one I think you just pulled out of your ass, but I guess it also falls into your "generalist" comment. Your arm getting tired? Your "snowballs" keep missing their target.

Rhetorist? Now you're just making words up. Every politician uses rhetoric. That just goes with the territory. Obama's rhetoric of change sure beats the Bush rhetoric of "jesus told me." That's for sure. And it sure beats the McCain rhetoric of "straight talk". And yes, another "snowball". Nice job. I think you have the most hypocritical comment of the day.

"please don't answer in your usual fashion, which is to hurl snowballs in so many unaimed directions"

Wow, you really are good at the whole psychological projection thing. Your entire comment was YOU hurling "snowballs" every which way and then telling Lucille not to. You didn't back up even one of your poorly thought out criticisms.

[Lucille Lo Sapio]

LUCILLE REPLIES:

Funny, how people who voted for both Reagan and Bush can now rant on about how important "experience" is. But, more on that later.

Obama's experience?

As of Jan 2009, when he takes office, Obama will have spent 4 years in the US Senate

He spent 8 years as a state senator and as a senior lecturer in the Univer of Chicago Law School (although I realize that to the GOP, being educated is a negative). The classes he taught were Constitutional Law, Voting Rights and the Democratic Process, etc. Seems like these are things that every President should know. . .

During his State Senate time, he worked year round, unlike the US Congress. So, 12 years as a public official.

Prior to his legislative experience, he worked as a community organizer for 3 years. If that doesn't give you experience in getting things done, I don't know what does.

In 1992, he ran Illinois Project Vote. In other words, he ran something more than just his mouth.

Now, let's look at the experience of the Presidents Ms. Draz DID vote for:
Ronald Reagan: 8 years as Governor of California and. . . .acting. That's all he got in before the age of 70, yet you still thought he was experienced enough?

George W Bush: 6 years as Governor (in a state where the governorship is mostly symbolic). Oh, and a few years running an oil company into the ground. 6 years of government experience? That was enough experience for you to vote for him, but 2 times that isn't?

Now, let's look at another President without a lot of experience: Abe Lincoln. Most people agree he was a great President, but the sum total of his legislative experience was 10 years - 8 in the Illinois state legislature and 2 in the US House.

So, unless you want to argue that Lincoln failed as President (and Reagan as well), then I guess you have to admit that Obama's 12 years (plus all his other experience) puts him right in the right place, experience-wise, with two Presidents who were very effective in accomplishing the goals they set out to meet.

Of course, there is always the most experienced, James Buchanan. He served 6 years in the Pennsylvania state legislature, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 years as ambassador to Russia, 10 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England.

Most historians describe Buchanan as the second worst President ever, worsted only by Warren Harding (Of course, they haven't ranked Bush yet. . . ).

Experience doesn't equal greatness. And experience in the slow-moving Senate may actually make a person less qualified to make quick decisions. Especially if he doesn't know that Iraq doesn't border Pakistan.

[Eric]

The experience issue really shows off the typical behavior within the conservative echo chamber. Rush or O'Reilly says it and the hordes of followers regurgitate it without even adding an ounce of analysis or critical thinking on their own. The best value we can get from experience in public service is being able to look into the past to see how a candidate stood on the issues or represented their constituents. Other than that, simply having experience means absolutely nothing. Look at all of Dick Cheney's experience. Do you think HE'd make a good president?

How about Saddam Hussein? He had a ton of experience as head of state. Do you think he'd make a good president? Right. There are a ton of other examples.

And what kind of experience are we even talking about here? Experience in the senate? How does that prepare one to be president? It doesn't. In fact, I see McCain's long stay in the senate as a huge negative. Bush-like voting record aside, McCain is way more likely to have been beaten down by the system. He has a long list of corporate supporters that he owes favors to. He is tainted by the system and his will to bring real change to this country is dead. All he wants is more of the same. He represents the old man stuck in his ways and unwilling to change. Obama still has his will power. He is (relatively) young and vibrant. He is the exact kind of person that I think represents a positive future. McCain represents death and war while Obama represents a bright future. It's in the policy. It's in the rhetoric. McCain wants more war and more oil. Obama wants to end war and to bring about a sustainable energy future. The choice is clear... unless of course you get all your information from the conservative echo chamber / right wing spin machine.

[john Ennis]

Lucille, unless the U.S. was going to keep major combat forces in Iraq forever, then eventually Obama's withdrawl plan was going to match the Administration's. Seeing as Obama's been touting his withdrawl plan for almost TWO YEARS, and it first envisioned major forces out by MARCH 2008, it's no surpise that if he talked about it long enough it would eventually reflect reality.

The problem with Obama's plan was if it was implemented in January 2007, it would have most likely left Iraq in chaos. It would have created a preventable disaster. If a cautious withdrawal plan is implemented now, Iraq should conitnue on a road to a better future. This is a distinction that can not be ignored.

Lucille, what did Obama get done as a community organizer?

Lucille, being a Governor is by far the best preparation for being a President. Being the Governor of a state like California is probably the ultimate preparation. Your argument otherwise is awful.

Let's not compare Obama to Republicans, where you are incapable of beinf fair. Let's compare Obama to other Democrats. Rank these candidates, based on where they were when they first ran, on their experience to be President:

2008 Obama
2004 Kerry
2000 Gore
1992 Clinton
1988 Dukakis
1984 Mondale
1976 Carter

You want my ranking - based solely on experience to be President? Here it is:

Dukakis
Gore
Mondale
Carter
Clinton
Kerry
Obama

The easiest ranking was to put Obama last. It's not even close.

Forget taking cheap shots at the GOP. What's your ranking among Dems only - and explain to me why Obama shouldn't be last.

[Lucille Lo Sapio]

LUCILLE REPLIES:
I'm not going to do your work for you, John. This is getting tiresome. I state a fact. You don't believe it, but don't offer any cogent response. Then you expect me to do your research for you. That said:

"Obama directed Illinois Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers that achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, leading Crain's Chicago Business to name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be."
(Quoted from White, Jesse (ed.) (2000). Illinois Blue Book, 2000, Millennium ed.. Springfield, IL: Illinois Secretary of State, p. 83. OCLC 43923973
Jarrett, Vernon (1992-08-11). Chicago Sun-Times, p. 23.
Reynolds, Gretchen (January 1993). "Vote of Confidence". Chicago 42 (1): 53–54.
Anderson, Veronica (September 27–October 3, 1993). "40 under Forty: Crain's Chicago Business 16 (39): 43. )

I think that might have been when George Bush was busy doing cocaine.

[Eric]

John, what's your point exactly? You say that you think governors are most experienced and then rank 2 former governors, Clinton and Carter, on the bottom of your list. (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter and FDR were all former governors by the way.) The relationship you're trying to make is weak. Not all governors make good presidents and not all good presidents were former governors. Besides, neither Obama nor McCain are governors so we're completely diverging from the issue at hand. Former senators typically make shitty presidents and McCain has been a senator for far longer than Obama. So, again, McCain's experience is the one that should count against him. But leave it to the right wing spin machine to try and turn McCain's weakness against Obama. The experience argument simply does not hold up under scrutiny. Try something else.

There is only one issue that truly matters for this election anyway -- the Supreme Court. Simply in the interest of keeping the court fair and balanced, Obama is the clear candidate of choice. But I'm not convinced you actually want fair or balanced or if you even have the cojones to vote for a Democrat simply in the interest of justice. But seeing as you still support the Bush administration, I'm guessing that it's partisanship all the way for you. Justice be damned.

[Lucille]

HERE'S AN UPDATE FROM Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers: Baghdad - "Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki said Monday there would be no security agreement between the United States and Iraq without an unconditional timetable for withdrawal - a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which insists that the timing for troop departure would be based on conditions on the ground."

So, I guess if we want to honor the "duly elected government" of Iraq, we're going to have to develop an "unconditional timetable for withdrawal." Hmmm. Timetable. . . anyone else have that idea before?

And in response to John's earlier contention that "eventually Obama's withdrawl plan was going to match the Administration's," I think I remember that both Bush and McCain had been saying that ANY timetable was a declaration of defeat.

So, is accepting a timetable (or the quaint "time horizon") an admission of defeat?

Why do they hate America?

[Eric]

Lucille, they'll never admit defeat. And they'll always keep lowering the bar for victory. In essence, they've already succeeded in their true goals.
www.gregpalast.com/obama’s-secret-war-profiteering-tax/