Obama’s 143 days, Hillary’s duty, and the politics of “experience” and “change”
OK, so Hillary “did her duty” last night and delivered a speech that caused the sort of “modifed rapture” Nanki-Poo experiences when he at last gets his tête-a-tête with Yum-Yum only to discover that his rival Koko, whom he thought beheaded, is alive and slated to be married to his beloved that very afternoon. Hillary really was dutiful. As Tom Bevan says over at RealClearPolitics, she got off a couple of zingers, e.g., “with an agenda like that, it makes sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities. Because these days they’re awfully hard to tell apart.” But being dutiful is not exactly the same as being wildly enthusiastic. At the end of the day, she bowed to the inevitable, she lay back, and thought of 2012. As Bevan notes, nowhere did Hillary say that Obama was ready to be Commander in Chief (an omission, he points out, that the McCain was quick to call to the public’s attention). Personally, I do not blame Hillary for this omission. The gag reflex is not generally subject to conscious suppression and, as Gertrude Stein said in another context, even Hillary knows how far she can go in going too far.
Of course, the issue of “experience” has been one of the two leitmotifs–or, rather, one of the two slogans–of this campaign. The other slogan is “change.” Both are like ancient coins whose identifying marks have been all but effaced by being handed around promiscuously for so long. It would be a useful exercise to try to give some content to what Obama means by “change.” Were I to attempt it, I would probably start by going back to the start of Obama’s political life in Bill “Weatherman” Ayers’s living room. Critical question: exactly what sort of “change” does Obama really want? The sort that Bill Ayers wanted in the 1960s, and, indeed, as late as September 11, 2001 when (as the gods of coincidence would have it) he was the subject of a flattering piece in The New York Times (natch) in which he said, inter alia, that far from regretting his efforts to bomb the Capitol, the Pentagon, and various police stations, he and his pals “didn’t do enough”? Well, that is a subject for another day, and, besides, Stanley Kurtz has been doing yeoman’s work uncovering the Barack Obama’s original political agenda. Obama now says that Ayers was “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” but Kurtz shows that Obama was chairman of The Annenberg Challenge, an activist, left-wing educational foundation in Chicago founded and inspired by Ayes. Really, so far as Obama is concerned, Ayers, who was pictured as recently as 2001 stomping on an American flag (the idea that America is decent society, he said, “makes me want to puke“) was “just a guy who lives” in Obama’s neighborhood and with whom he just happened had a close professional and political relationship.
In any event, “change” is a slogan I’ll leave for another day. But what about “experience”? It’s that quality that McCain is supposed to have lots of, Obama is supposed to lack, but what, really are we talking about? We all know that length of time by itself is no measure of learning let alone wisdom. “We had the experience,” T.S. Eliot lamented in Four Quartets, “but missed the meaning.” But we also know that experience, i.e., time served, counts for something. And with this in mind, I am happy to share the bulk of an email a friend sent me that compares Obama’s experience with John McCain’s. It was titled “The Executive Summary” and offers, I believe, a thought-provoking comparison:
John McCain in Congress: 26 years; in the military: 22 Years
Barrack Obama in Congress: 143 days; in the military: 0
The email went on to offer these reflections:
From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United States Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory Committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate.
That’s how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.
The one single Senate committee that he headed never even met — once.
After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
Think about it……. 143 days — 20.4 weeks — 4.7 months …
The email concluded with a line printed in large type:
Our children spend more time in pre-school getting ready for kindergarten.
Makes you think, doesn’t it? As I say, experience, measured simply by time passed, isn’t everything. But surely it is something.
In the absence of elected executive experience, the experience of radical non-profit boardrooms looms larger in Obama’s experience. Unfortunately. Having been there, also unfortunately, I have to say that the radical non-profit boardroom is a place where every human attribute and intent is first stomped down into boxes of “identity” and “victimization” and only after that process has eviscerated any possible sense of moving forward does anybody decide it is time to move forward. But then it is impossible to do so, because all that is left are these empty identities, which, ironically, works out well when achieving productivity would have produced something as damaging as an educational initiative based on Bill Ayer’s philosophy. Imagine how this would work in the White House, though, where there is a constant demand for real action, lubricated as it would be by a panting, fawning fourth estate. Last night Hillary Clinton graciously delivered an emotionally brilliant, politically accomplished speech, and today every Obama-besotted scribbler is holding his nose (at best) and whinging on that it was not enough. And that is the true message of these folks: not change but “Not Enough.” Not enough racial apologetics, not enough money thrown into underclass wormholes, not enough recrimination, not enough submission to their vision, never enough twisting on the prejudiced homiletics of political correctness. I cannot believe that out of a Party of millions, the Democrats have been mau maued into this particular corner by this singularly destructive faction. I suppose I can understand the dismay of the Obamaites last night: the difference between the Party of Clinton and the Party of Obama was excruciatingly visible.
Well written and insightful. I would just add that I think it is more insidious. I could be wrong but it seems reminiscent of the 20th century power struggles / purges one saw in Marxist Leninism under the rubric of “authenticity” and which faction is the most authentic. Since both camps are far left the authenticity argument pivots on the winner of the victimization and identity contestyou mention. I think you correctly refer to it as “not enough” but the tap root of it is firmly planted in Marx. That’s why these folks scare me. To win one must first purge the party and then use that power base to destroy the opposition. The opposition is not authentic and, therefore, stands in the way of progress. One can then rationalize restrictions on freedom such as the Fairness Doctrine and repeal of gun ownership, expanded speech codes, and hate crimes legislation, etc. in the pursuit of rooting out the unauthentic opposition who refuse to be stomped into those boxes. If the Dems take control of the government then I fear we will see our freedoms eroded in the name of identity and victimization and government compassion. My hunch is the Clintons are more ruthless but that Obama is a fast learner and he may be our next President.
Oh, Roger. Since you keep harping on Ayers and associations, maybe you should ask yourself why John McCain took money from unflinching nutjob Gordon Liddy
(http://tinyurl.com/575h93) and a birthday invite from blood-soaked mobster Joseph Bonanno (http://tinyurl.com/6m4bbo).
I’m not betting you’ll pause for such reflection, mind you, which is why I hope you and your fellows suffer an electoral beating so big that it knocks those hideous glasses off your face.
Oh, and by the way: aren’t you a bit old to be wearing a bowtie?
I gave that up after my sixth birthday party, the one with clowns and balloons.
“Oh, and by the way: aren’t you a bit old to be wearing a bowtie?
I gave that up after my sixth birthday party, the one with clowns and balloons.”
What does this have to do with anything? Why the vicious personal attack? Behave yourself.
“Too old to wear a bowtie”? That is indeed a ridiculous personal attack.
Surely you meant “not clever enough to wear a bowtie”. That’s what people usualy post here. I did myself some months ago, probably unfairly. How clever do you have to be to wear a funny tie?
I do wonder about the fetishization of military experience. Yes the President is the comander in chief of the military, but he is a civilian. The point is that he is a civilian, representing civilians, who controls the military. Or am I wrong? America, or the conservative part of it, is quite unusual among decent democratic countries in its Junta-ish desire that presidents have to be soldiers.
Like Roger, I tought Hilary’s endorsement was honest. “We need Democrat policies. Obama is the Candidate who will deliver them (I would have been better but thats not going to happen). Vote for Obama and not the other guy.” is what I heard. I also think that everyone should have an eye on 2012. If the next president gets two terms I will give Roger Kimbal $20.
“Why the vicious personal attack?”
Ah, that rare breed, the Joe Lieberman fan, known for whining about “incivility” while sitting idly by as the worst possible things are uttered. I assume you were similarly critical of Roger when he suggested in a recent post that Obama is a secret Islamist and cokehead, but I’m not holding out hope.
“But being dutiful is not exactly the same as being wildly enthusiastic.”
Or honest. Let’s face it, “honest” and “Clinton” in the same sentence makes a clanging noise.
Well, once Obama goes down in flames in the election, Hillary’s biggest problem will be keeping her heels cool for another four years.
Maybe she can use the time to learn some economics.
Scott
Jay:
“Oh, and by the way: aren’t you a bit old to be wearing a bowtie?
I gave that up after my sixth birthday party, the one with clowns and balloons.”
That’s the thing about the left. They are, by and large, so much quicker with the truly infantile ad hominem attack than conservatives.
It says something about the discernment and maturity of the left in general.
Well done, as always, Roger (a new favorite of mine.)
re: Jay, I really begin to wonder if these stupid, off-the-point responses,(as often heard on conservative talk radio) are really just rightwingers trying to make leftists sound even more clueless than they naturally are.
(Maybe someone could fund a study on it.)
Discernment and maturity, Lefroy? Isn’t yours the intellectual movement that brought us Dan Quayle?
It’s a fact that Roger Kimball is a master of the ad hominem attack, bringing up Obama’s middle name, for example, as a reason to suspect the man.
And Terry, I think it’s right on point to push back on the question of associations, if folks like Roger Kimball think they should decide presidential elections. So, Roger and Co., what is your candidate doing with insane Nixon-era apparatchiks and mob bosses? More than sitting on a board, I’d say. But then, that’s not, in my view, a good reason to vote against John McCain. I’d be open to voting for him, in fact, if his two major legislative
“accomplishments” (McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy) weren’t such messes that they forced him to alter or abandon the positions he advocated while stumping for the original legislation.
Let’s own up Roger. BHO at least has a few more days in the Senate than Kerry had in Vietnam;.)
Not to sound like a complete pedant, but you have to compare experience between Obama and McCain, you must adjust for opportunity, that is, age.
And we should surely count the time Obama served in his state legislature. Doing all that (I did a more extensive calculation at my site) still gives McCain more than twice as much experience as Obama.
However, McCain never had the opportunity that Obama had when he had the chance to learn from Ayers how to be promoted to a distinguished professor U Chicago after calling for the killing of his fellow Americans. Surely, that task takes extraordinary political skills.
First off, Mr Kimball. Do you feel you have such a moral obligation to give space to the mentally impaired that you must post their every bilious, irrelevant rant? And every response to those rants, which just feeds their warped egos? Surely no reasonable reader (which I believe is your target audience) will be offended, and the rantor will be left to stew in his own bile, instead of feeling a tingle down his leg to see his trash in “print’.
As to your article: In the old days of our Republic, flowery socialist ranting of the Obama variety was dismissed as “Pie in the sky, bye and bye, when you die” and “Chicken in every pot”. Obama hasn’t moved one inch from that vacuity, and the suckers are still enthralled.
His theme song should be “The big rock candy mountain”. Maybe somebody (hopefully Mark Steyn) can do a parody of it for use in McCain’s ads.
My friend just emailed this to me. And since I have a BA in History/Political Science, I just can’t help adding my two cents (albeit belatedly).
The 143 days refers to days IN SESSION, which is not the same as time served as a Senator. Senators actually do work between sessions. They help resolve issues for their constituents, find out what problems are affecting their states, research issues, write legislation, try to convince other Senators to support legislation, etc etc. And the US Senate is not the full extent of Obama’s experience.
Here’s a quick bio:
Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and received his J.D. from Harvard School of Law. He was a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School before running for the state legislature. He has spent 8 years as an Illinois State Senator and 3 years as a US Senator.
Let’s compare that to a few of our friends:
George W. Bush –
B.S from Yale, and M.B.A from Harvard. Before he became the Governor of Texas, he worked for his family’s oil business and then co-owned a major league baseball team. His only additional political experience consisted of an unsuccessful campaign in 1978 for the US House. He spent 6 years as Governor before running for President.
Sarah Palin –
B.S. in Communications/Journalism. I’m not sure where her degree is from because its described as follows: “She enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College but left after her first semester, transferring to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, then returned to the University of Idaho.”
Her political experience consists of the Wasilla City Council for 4 years, Mayor of Wasilla for 4 years, and two whole years as Governor of Alaska. By the way, Wasilla has a population of about 5400 according to the 2000 US census. The state of Alaska itself ranks 48th in total population. So if McCain wins and happens to die in Office…I’m moving to Canada.
Ronald Regan –
Graduated Eureka College in sociology and economics. He was a Captain in the Army and President of the Screen Actors Guild. Before he became president, his political experience consisted of 9 years as Governor of California and an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1976 (He was then elected in 1980).
This one is my favorite:
Abraham Lincoln –
Self-educated lawyer who only completed about 18 months of formal schooling in his entire life. He spent 8 years in the Illinois legislature, and ran unsuccessfully to become a US Senator before being nominated as the Republican Candidate for President in 1860 (He won).
So personally I think that Obama’s experience is at very least comparable to others who have become President.
And as a sidenote, military experience is neither a necessity for becoming a good President even in times of war, nor a guarantee that someone will make a good president at any time. If you don’t believe me, I urge you to look up Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ulysees Grant.