I think that there are a couple of things to be said,
First of all, it seems to me that who we should be reading and listening to are the candidates themselves, with the assumption [until unequivocally demonstrated otherwise] that they know what they are talking about, they mean what they say, and they believe in what they are telling us.
We don’t have to agree with it, but we can always put our disagreement on the shelf for a minute [No one will steal it and it won't spoil.] while we try to examine what the person who wants our vote actually has to say.
Incoherent and overemotive followers can be found hanging around any candidate. They are not the ones who will be sitting in the big chair with the flags behind them.
Beyond this, even if we are expecting to be adversarial to the opposing candidate, we don’t want to start with any spur of the moment remark to a reporter’s question, or any situation where the candidate is being asked for an immediate and comprehensive solution for the world shaking problem that first showed up last week.
Nobody could possibly be at their best under those conditions, and we want to hear the best the candidate has to offer. So what we need is what he or she has to say, in a venue where they are comfortable, when they’ve had time to think about what they want to say, and when they’ve had time to work on the way they want to say it.
There are two cases where I think you can find Obama at his best: the speech he gave at the Tiergarten in Berlin, and the speech he gave at the DNC.
So the best way to approach them is to get hold of a transcript of each of these speeches and read them. That way we don’t have to contend with either a polished, or a rough speaking style, either of which might distract or obscure the meaning and the content.
When we have our text, we need to bring to it a basic question: What does this person actually want to accomplish? Not how, but what. No matter what “how” anyone proposes, the next President is not going to quite be able to do it that way–the Separation of Powers and the twists and turns of fate simply will not permit it.
Now, if you do that, you can take Obama and pick an issue, say, policy in the Middle East. And when you read those speeches, you can clearly see at least three specific things Obama wants to do: withdraw from Iraq, step up operations in Afghanistan by all the countries of NATO, and to absolutely and unequivocally prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In both those speeches, you can find other specific things that, unequivocally, Obama wants to do, at home or abroad, whether we think they are good ideas or not.
When we are sure of this, we can bring our disagreement back to the table and ask, “Are any or all of these what I want to see done?”
The answer doesn’t have to be yes, It doesn’t even have to be a polite no. It can perfectly well be: only over my dead body!
The only thing it needs to be is about something real, not some nebulous notion like “change”, “experience”, “flip-flopping”, or being a “maverick”–but about something real: I want to do this, I want to stop doing that, I want to make sure this other thing never happens. All that other stuff is simply contentless political blather.
Bill Clinton’s remark is the most apt: Nobody starts with enough experience for the job of President.
He should know.
I’m not naive enough to think that this is going to convince anyone here at PJM to vote for Obama. But it just might get somebody to decide not to vote for him for real reasons–i.e. what he might actually try to do if he is sitting in the big chair in front of those flags.
Anybody who rejects him for that, I can’t quarrel with.
Unfortunately, I remain massively annoyed with the McCain Campaign–not with the candidates, with the campaign.
I don’t think the campaign has let me see either McCain or Palin at their best, and allowed me to put that clear question of What do they want to accomplish? to them when they are at their best.
I don’t think I’d agree with it, but I’d like to have my disagreement be about something real.
I don’t really care if Palin is a “hockey mom”, or McCain is a “maverick”. I’ve watched every President since Eisenhower and I think Bill Clinton is right, so I’m not that interested in anybody’s claims to “experience” either.
I want them to be able to tell me what they want to do in that Big Chair, in a venue where they are comfortable, and when they’ve had time to give it some real thought.
The way Sarah Palin was picked, I’m never going to see her at her best. I’ve seen enough of her to know that there is no real reason for her not to be a serious candidate in a national election. But the way she’s been picked [basically on three days notice] and the way she’s been presented and marketed, has simply made it impossible for her to make a major speech in a comfortable venue where she’s had time to think.
All I’m going to get for the next six weeks is the continuation of the People Magazine hullabaloo. And that really frosts me off–not at Palin, but at her handlers.
I also think I didn’t get John McCain at his best at the RNC,[which was my best chance] because the whole darn event [when it was not about bashing Obama] was about what happened to John McCain in Hanoi. And by encouraging him to focus on that in his own speech, I think his own handlers sold him at a massive discount.
I actually think he is much better than I will get to see in the next six weeks. And that also frosts me off, not at McCain, but at his campaign. I wouldn’t expect to agree with him, or to vote for him, but as of now, I don’t have anything real to disagree with him about.
And that’s a sin and a shame. We all deserve better.
