Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Storm response updates
Posted in:
My Sun-Times column this week is about Barack Obama’s possible run for the presidency. There is much more to it than the excerpt here so go read the whole thing before you comment, please. I chose this excerpt because the issue of Obama’s experience has been so hotly debated in the comment section and around the nation.
The experience issue is less of a problem for me. Abraham Lincoln’s sole governmental experience was eight years in the Illinois House and just two years in Congress, yet he was one of our greatest presidents. Besides, more “experience” wallowing through the disgusting cesspool that is Washington may only hurt Obama, not help him.
According to Tom Schwartz, the Illinois state historian, 19th century voters didn’t view politics as a profession, so they didn’t expect presidential candidates like Lincoln to have extensive political experience. The issue never came up in the 1860 campaign, Schwartz said.
After telling Schwartz that I was trying hard not to add to the hype by comparing Lincoln to Obama, Schwartz shared some surprising thoughts.
‘’What Lincoln brought to the presidency, which was very much needed at the time . . . [was] a very fine ear for listening to the public’s concerns and then being able to articulate responses that created consensus that was able to move the country forward in positive ways,'’ Schwartz said. Schwartz then said that he saw a direct comparison to Obama’s calls for unity and the way Obama had sparked so much interest from people who normally don’t care for politics.
As I make clear in the column, the main sticking point for me is the Rezko land deal. Eric Krol has more on that angle in his column today.
Potential script for a new TV campaign ad, probably viewable only in January 2008 in Iowa, New Hampshire and on YouTube:
Cue bouncy music, something along the lines of 1950s advertisements or the “Leave it To Beaver†theme. Voice-over from a paternal-sounding announcer … “Meet Barack Obama. He bought a $1.65 million mansion. Meet his neighbor, Tony Rezko, indicted on major federal corruption charges that he traded his influence with a politician for kickbacks.†(Note: don’t mention that the politician is actually Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, not Obama. This is a campaign ad, after all.)
“Senator Obama couldn’t quite afford both that house and the well-groomed vacant lot next door, so he persuaded the seller to give him a $300,000 discount on the house. But his savvy and sleazy real estate developer friend, Rezko, cheerily offered to pay full price for that empty lot. Now they’re neighbors.â€
Music turns dramatic, as does announcer’s tone. “Indicted pals. Insider real estate deals. Is this the type of politician you want to elect president?â€
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 8:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Storm response updates
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Lack of experience” is a charge leveled by incumbents trying to protect the status quo. Exactly what type of experience is really needed in order to be a successful elected official?
Comment by Squideshi Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 8:40 am
If ‘Illinois State Historian’ a tax payer funded position? If so, which politican controls the patronage for that job?
Comment by Leroy Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 8:49 am
The Rezko red herring didn’t work against the governor and it won’t work against Barack. Was anything other than a legal land transaction deal perpetrated? No! Do you think that the Clintons would bring this up given their expierence in the real estate realm? I doubt it.
Rich is correct about the experience issue. Washington experience should be considered a negative at this point. We need a common citizen who can give the citizenry hope for the future. It is time for some new faces in Washington after 8 years of insider dealing, crooked lobbyists,Republican sex scandals,over-reaching US attorneys, and feathering the nest of Haliburton and Texas oil companies.
As far as experience goes, the less the better. Let an unconnected, honest, bright,young, hard working citizen from the Heartland get to the White House and clean up the mess.
Go Obama in ‘08!
Comment by Bill Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 8:53 am
Compare him with Clinton. She’s acknowledged by both sides of the aisle as having done her home work at Senate Armed Services. She’s an expert.
I don’t get the same feeling at all with Obama at Foreign Affairs.
And the Rezko land deal shattered my hopes for him.
Too many people try and get their hooks into you when your a star, and Obama bit.
Instead a Clinton who casts her own hooks. If I had to vote between the two of them, I’d pick her.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 9:08 am
The problem with Obama’s history is that he has made so few decisions of significance and relevance to his possible presidential run that we have to give a lot of weight to the decisions we know about.
And that is why the Rezko matter is so troubling. Obama has plenty of money. He could have afforded to buy that lot himself. And the dangers of cronyism and corruption are ever present daily
in the headlines of his hometown newspapers.
Yet he took the cronyism path with Rezko and only apologized when it became a media issue, in a clear effort to limit the political damage.
I wonder, does Rezko or his wife still own that lot next door?
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 9:08 am
Somebody tell Krol not to give up his day job.
An ad writer he is not.
Democrats want the White House back, and while many Democrats like Hillary Clinton, the growing concensus is that she cannot win.
The reason is pretty simple. 47 percent of voters nationally say they would never vote for her. It’s impossible to win when your opponent can take 47% of the vote for granted.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 9:13 am
I’ve heard this before, and find it highly plausible. -Obama has to run now, if he waits until the next election he will have run up an indefensible voting record. He is more liberal than any kennedy ever was or is, and once that is discovered by looking at his ‘experience’, no middle ground democrat, or recently won over republican would vote for him.
Comment by Danimal Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 9:16 am
What Lincoln brought to the White House was a steadfast resolve to do the right thing, regardless of political expediency. Most of the public was against the war by 1863. The newspapers hounded the poor man to death and ran cartoons with him portrayed as a baboon. His opponent in ‘64 was a “Peace Democrat” who wanted the South the go its own way. Lincoln stuck to his guns.
I don’t think we have enough information on Obama to make a comparison.
More crucially, with the exception of the military, the federal government in 1860 was a tiny, tiny fraction of the size of the government nowadays, and the pace of life was drastically slower. Lack of experience at the federal level was not an issue. Now the government is larger than any ten corporations in the world. There are literally millions of employees in hundreds of departments and bureaus. America was isolationist in 1860. It is interventionist since about 1898, and there’s no going back.
Quit comparing apples to orchards.
Comment by HoosierDaddy Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 9:30 am
Obama has a thin resume and very little foriegn policy experience. If he gets the nomination the Rebubs will beat him.
Comment by Milorad Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 9:32 am
I think he’s still pissed that you called him “a hump” in an 04 Cap Fax.
Comment by Snark Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 9:47 am
HoosierDaddy -
Comment by Leroy Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 9:51 am
Rich -
I’m not saying that this is the whole reason for Obama’s hype around here, or your interest in him specifically….
But, honestly, to what extent do you think that the Illinois media’s interest in an Obama candidacy is due to the fact that Illinois hasn’t really been in play for 20 years now, and this might give them a reason to actually cover Presidential politics.
Comment by grand old partisan Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 9:51 am
First, looking at whitewater, beef futures and the like the house thing looks like small taters on some level. Also it’s a bit hard to understand in 30 secods.
Finally a good walking in the field explaining ad would defuse it in a second.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 9:56 am
Obama is like a shiney good looking sports car built by Fisher Price. I will not be sold on looks and books. He has to prove himself, just like the thousands of other US leaders capable of being president.
Enough with the swooning. Open your eyes and use your head. Obama is untested. Let him get tested first before you jump on his bandwagon. If he is as great as he says he is then he’ll be available later. He isn’t old.
There is nothing Obama could say or do at this point to convince me he should be president. He isn’t ready.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:00 am
Keep in mind, voters want change in 2008. They want Barack Obama to be what they need him to be at this time. Someone different.
Hillary’s biggest impediment, and the real reason she won’t be president is this: if Hillary is elected to two terms, the Bush Family and the Clinton family will have controlled the White House for 28 straight years. Twenty eight years. Have YOU had enough?
Comment by John Lee Pettimore Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:02 am
Everyone says Barack needs to be tested. Riddle me this: How did President Reagan fare on this test? How did our current President fare on this test? He was a ceremonial Governor from a confederate state. How about Eisenhower? How did he do on your test? Anyone who states that Barack isn’t tested stands for the status quo plain and simple.
Comment by John Lee Pettimore Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:06 am
Keep in mind, voters want change in 2008.
I agree. It’s the same sentiment that gave us Jimmy Carter; another warm guy with a big heart, in 1976. I’m hoping Giuliani fills the bill instead.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:07 am
Good point Pettimore. Hadn’t really looked at it like that.
Naysayers: If Obama is untested, what is Hillary? Does six years in the U.S. Senate qualify for her President? What has she accomplished there? Her one single biggest vote to date has been on whether or not to invade Iraq, and she botched that one and still can’t admit it.
If Obama doesn’t run, I’ll support John Edwards again. Democrats can do better than Hillary Clinton.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:09 am
I’ll answer that!
Reagan was governor of the country’s largest state and world’s fifth largest economy for EIGHT years.
Bush was governor of the country’s fastest growing state and soon to be one of the world’s largest economies - elected TWICE.
Eisenhower lead the largest military enterprise ever assembled, of untested drafted young me, and organized multinational governments towards the defeat of the Nazis - in FOUR YEARS.
Barak? Two years as Senator? The idea of this pretty boy being president based on those credentials should send goosebumps up your spine.
Don’t talk nonsense!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:10 am
===I don’t think we have enough information on Obama to make a comparison.
But this is kind of the point–was Lincoln so clearly headed for greatness in 1858?
I am not comparing him to Lincoln in what Lincoln did, but in terms of he was largely an unknown quantity when he ran. No one expects the person running for President to be the guy everyone sets their expectations by in the future nor do they expect them to be the worst President over.
But let’s look at if from the back end–what Senator who has been in the Senate for a long time is clearly better equipped to be President? There are a couple examples of people who have grown–I think McCain fits that category, but look at those with the most experience–does anyone expect Dodd or Biden to get the nomination besides Dodd and Biden?
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:12 am
This guy is a historian? Lincoln developed a consensus? HALF the country seceded! Douglas was the one looking for a consensus. Lincoln was the steadfast one. Lincoln took tough stances and weathered the political storms that followed. Obama’s speeches are riddled with political mumbo jumbo and doublespeak.
It is amazing the mythology that has developed around this guy.
Comment by Consensus? Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:17 am
A nice article Rich. I am concerned that Barack is being portrayed for his high ideals yet he buys a million dollar home away from those who brung him to the dance. I don’t want to be cynical, as, like you, I want to believe this could be the person to pull us all together. He is a dynamic speaker but I saw plenty of these slick folks back in the oil boom in the early 1980s, selling get rich oil deals. They could sell ice to Eskimos. Then there is the Rezko deal…. How much more of this is in him? Again, granted he is a good orator, but I think the machine of nastiness and pure meanness know as “politics†will destroy him. He must stand alone, not tie himself to any other political candidate, regardless of the urge to be accepted and endorsed. And he really does need to talk about his plans, policies, and agenda and less about his book. In short, how will he serve the people and help us be a great nation.
Comment by Justice Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:24 am
What bothers me the disagreement among Obama supporters themselves. Some are saying that Obama’s admitted inexperience is a good thing, while others rejecting the premise of him as inexperienced itself. He can’t be both, and the fact that his supporters are offering him up as an ‘everything to everyone’ sort of candidate adds credibity to the arguement that he is unsubstantial.
Comment by grand old partisan Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:26 am
You would think that nobody liked him!
Comment by sam Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:29 am
Partisan:
You can’t be unsubstantial and burn as hot as this guy is burning. He does risk burning out, I grant you that, but your belief that he can’t be all things to all people flies in the face of reality. People are drawn to him, not because of the press fawning over him, but because he is truly charismatic.
Comment by John Lee Pettimore Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:33 am
John Lee,
I wholehearted disagree with your rationale. Hype can induce cynicism, especially when the arguments of those promoting the hyped object are contradictory.
http://gopartisan.blogspot.com/2006/12/they-love-him-even-if-they-cant-agree.html
Comment by grand old partisan Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:42 am
The Rezko thing will come up, but it’s hardly fatal, any more than Hillary magically turning $1,000 into $100,000 with a commodities trader friend of her husband’s in Bill’s Arkansas governor’s days.
Comment by NW Side Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:45 am
Rich, if you haven’t read it already, I highly recommend “Lincoln’s Preparation for Greatness” by Paul Simon. It’s the definitive history of Lincoln’s career in the General Assembly. There is no historical evidence that Lincoln personally benefitted from the passage of the Internal Improvements Act, the Build Illinois bond program of the mid 19th century.
Comment by Cal Sandbag Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:59 am
What is interesting about Obama is his popularity shows a strong desire among all Americans for an African-American President. Voters want one to give some closure to our past racism.
Krauthammer is the only guy I’ve read who’s mentioned this,
Of course there is racism in America. Call me naive, but I believe that just as Joe Lieberman was a net positive for the Democrats in 2000 — more people were attracted to him as a man of faith than were turned away because of anti-Semitism — there are more Americans who would take special pride in a black president than there are those who would reject one because of racism.
I’ve always had this feeling Obama was more of a star in DuPage then the City for just this reason. In the city he was no symbol but just the guy from Hyde Park who got clobbered by Rush.
I think Rezko and the scandals are only going to make things worse for all Illinois Democrats and will end up taking a lot them down….
…but the deep desire for an African American candidate may transfer from Obama to Rice. I can see that happening.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 11:04 am
In response to the hypothetical anti-Obama ad, you could do the same thing with regard to more clearly corrupt behavior about all the firt-tier contenders (Clinton, McCain, Giuliani)
Comment by realist Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 11:10 am
Like Doris Kearns Goodwin talks about the lack of experience that Lincoln had compared to his opponents for the nomination.
We need some on with a vision like Lincoln.
Obama could be the breath of fresh ideas we need.
Comment by decaturboy Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 11:19 am
*first-tier
Comment by realist Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 11:54 am
This relates more to the post the other day about the Trib editorial, but…from pollingreport.com:
WNBC/Marist Poll. (Nov. 27-Dec. 3, 2006. N=967 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.)
“Do you want [see below] to run for president in 2008 or not?”
Barack Obama: Yes 30%; No 51%; Undecided 19%
Even if all the undecides broke for Obama in the next year, that still leaves him with only 49% wanting him to run for President. The idea that he is a universally attractice candidate who could unite the country is a media myth, without anything more than anecdotal, editorialized evidence to back it up.
Comment by grand old partisan Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 12:02 pm
“the deep desire for an African American candidate may transfer from Obama to Rice.”
“I believe the title [of the August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing] was: ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’” — national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, May 18, 2004.
Kinda makes that whole Rezko thing look like nuthin’.
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 12:03 pm
Austin,
People understand greed. It’s going to be real tough for Obama to get past this.
Most Americans under estimated the threat of radical Islam and bin Lade.
Most Americans will understand the Rezko story.
Add too the greed, the moralism, and I think it will be tough for him.
A more indictments coming in Illinois…. time will tell.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 12:15 pm
Bill,
Most Americans are smart enough to understand that prior to Sep 11 Condi handled a memo entitled: ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’ It’s simply a matter of looking at a calendar.
“People understand greed. It’s going to be real tough for Obama to get past this.”
Please believe that. And spread the word that the Rezko deal is Obama’s kryptonite. Cause if that’s all you got, Michelle should start packing her bags.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain this deal — with an emphasis on Obama’s “greed” — in just one paragraph. If you can’t do that, good luck in turning it into a campaign issue.
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 12:26 pm
I voted for Obama. I’m entitled to be disappointed with that vote. Not sure I regret it yet but Obama is pushing.
I was impressed with Clinton after she did the briefing on the Health Care plan alone before the Senate Committee. She works hard on issues and knows her stuff.
I had high hopes for Obama on Africa. He doesn’t Africa on the radar screen the way I hoped. With the sense of urgency Africa deserves.
Instead I got these strange speeches from Obama about Fatherhood, etc… this moralistic fluff I don’t need to hear from a politican.
Then the guy goes into this Rezko deal and on top of it Rezko is under investigation for shaking down the Iraqis on electric contracts.
That all entitles me to a little disappointment about a man I voted for.
Give me Hillary… give me Rice… either seems better to me at the moment than the man from Illinois.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 12:35 pm
Krol did it in a sentence,
Cue bouncy music, something along the lines of 1950s advertisements or the “Leave it To Beaver†theme. Voice-over from a paternal-sounding announcer … “Meet Barack Obama. He bought a $1.65 million mansion. Meet his neighbor, Tony Rezko, indicted on major federal corruption charges that he traded his influence with a politician for kickbacks.†(Note: don’t mention that the politician is actually Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, not Obama. This is a campaign ad, after all.)
You need to live in a 1.65 million dollar house (and granted a million ain’t what it used to be) and Rezko helps you out, well you have some acquisition issues.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 12:38 pm
Yeah — greed is buying a home at market price and then purchasing adjoining vacant property at market price.
The nerve of Obama paying full price for anything.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 12:42 pm
Not sure where Mr. Schwartz bases his opinion on, but to call Lincoln a consensus builder is a bunch of hooey. I would say just the opposite. Lincoln was one of the most principled men of all time, and had a will of iron to see things through on his terms.
Recall that Lincoln was staunchly anti-slavery, which was as polarizing an issue then as abortion is today. He won the election of 1860 in a four-way race with 39% of the vote. He then refused to compromise on slavery in the face of Southern secession, and sent in the Army to put down the Confederacy. He refused to stop a war that resulted in 600,000 killed (and that’s just the soldiers). He used troops and a suspension of
Habeas Corpus to put down anti-war and anti-draft riots opposing him. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation against the strong opposition of his entire cabinet and party. While he was President he was sniped at, berated and denounced not merely by the opposing party, but by members of his own party. Once when Congress went into recess he said, “Finally we can get some business done on our own.”
Just more Obama claptrap, Rich. Does Prince Barack walk on water, too?
Comment by Bubs Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 12:53 pm
All these commenters on this blog saying Obama doesn’t have a chace.
The same commenters who said that Blagojevich couldn’t win re-election and then later saying if he did win it would by the narrowest of margins. The same commenters who said that Treasurer Elect Giannoulias would have to drop out before the general election. Now you experts say Obama can’t win.
I say here today that if Obama runs he will be our next President and he will be a great President.
Comment by (618) Democrat Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 1:29 pm
Sen. Obama has a great chance.
Skip over the Rezko Ranch and Outfit banker mistakes.
Sadly, he enters after Sen. Clinton has nailed down the nomination so he may need to wait.
However, if Sen. Clinton opts not to run; he could mop up McCain and Rudy just as easily as Sen. Clinton.
Comment by HeKnowsBarack Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 2:26 pm
All these commenters on this blog saying Obama doesn’t have a chance.
I am on record saying the Dem ticket will be Gore-Obama.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 2:28 pm
I will support Obama after he has proved he has moved beyond being just another old-fashioned liberal and after he has served ONE TERM successfully and has been RE-ELECTED.
He is the weakest of the proposed presidential candidates for 2008. He has no resume. We have no proof he can even do anything other than speak, smile and write about himself.
You don’t buy a car without looking under the hood. Right now, common sense says there shouldn’t be enough engine under that hood to pull the load we have to give it. Stop marveling at the hubcaps, and start using your head.
If he is as great as his supporters claim, he has years to serve Illinois before jumping into a run for the White House.
Hillary will be the nominee for 2008. The best Obama should do is be her running mate. He would come out ahead even if she lost. He would still have two more years to serve in his FIRST TERM and face voters for their approval.
Please stop slobbering over him.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 2:29 pm
Republicans are terrified of Obama.
You read it here, but more so, you can just feel it, smell it, taste it. The GOP is terrified: Obama is a real candidate who could and would win the White House in 2008.
Illinois Republicans are screaming that Obama is a corrupt politician because his next door neighbor is Toney Rezko.
Sorry, but you guys lost your credibility to lecture anyone about corruption in government right around the 75th conviction in Operation Safe Roads.
Moreover, as others have pointed out here, the Rezko “story” here isn’t a story. Obama bought real estate on the open market. He paid market value in a buyer’s market. His neighbor has been indicted. Go ahead and try and spin they “story” into something else or something more - the last time someone tried the Rezko attack angle, it worked so well Blago is writing his second inauguration speech.
As for the argument that Obama lacks the experience to be President, its not the paper, its the person that matters.
Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had the perfect resumes to run and win the war in Iraq, but instead initiated a fiasco. Its not experience alone, but rather does the person have the judgment necessary to learn from experience and make good decisions.
Comment by George Ryan's Cellmate Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 2:58 pm
John Lee Pitimore had a good thing going, asking if how Reagan and Bush Jr. had done on their “tests” to debunk the argument that Barack has as much experience and accomplishments as past presidents.
But he should have stopped there. He added Eisenhower. I would say there’s no doubt how Eisenhower did on the test. After liberating Europe, I would say he was clearly qualified to be President.
Comment by NW Side Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 2:59 pm
Republicans should fear Clinton more than Barak.
And Barak should fear Clinton… Check Tony Blankely’s Hillary, Barack and All That,
Or consider my old boss Newt Gingrich — Clinton’s primary political opponent in the 1990s. Clinton’s IRS very publicly opened an investigation of Newt for tax fraud. They kept it open for years, and then, a few weeks after he retired, the IRS quietly announced the investigation was complete and he was innocent. But not before Democrats spent years using that phony investigation as a basis for calling Newt a tax cheat. That’s the way the Clintons play the game. They call it the policy of personal destruction. For Obama’s sake, I hope he is ready for the game he is so anxious to get into.
Obama’s got a relationship with Rezko going back to 1990.
Q: Senator, when did you first meet Tony Rezko? How did you become friends? How often would you meet with him, and when did you last speak with him?
A: I had attracted some media attention when I was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. And while I was in law school, David Brint, who was a development partner with Tony Rezko contacted me and asked whether I would be interested in being a developer. Ultimately, after discussions in which I met Mr. Rezko, I said no.
I have probably had lunch with Rezko once or twice a year and our spouses may have gotten together on two to four occasions in the time that I have known him. I last spoke with Tony Rezko more than six months ago.
A lot of fertile ground to go over. Hillary is no Bobby Rush or Alan Keyes.
The only thing that saves him are the netrooters and Lamont people taking out Hillary. Gore wins, and brings on the crippled Obama.
They lose to either McCain Rice or Giuliani Rice.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 3:11 pm
John Lee Pettimore is loco on this “tested” bit!
Reagan - two terms as Chief Executive of the largest state in the Union, with an economy larger than most countries. As for testing, he was the Governor in the late 1960s. Don’t know if JLP was around then, but things were “a little stormy” - anyone who thinks this country is in trouble right now should have been around for 1968.
Bush 43 - Two terms as Chief Executive of the 2nd largest state in the Union, with an economy larger than most countries.
Dwight Eisenhower - Not tested, huh? Just ws the leader of the largest military force in human history. Led the force to victory in the largest war in human history, and personally commanded the largest and riskiest seaborne invasion ever attempted. Engaged in successful personal diplomacy with all major world leaders on tough issues. By the end of the war, with Franklin Roosevelt dead, Eisenhower was probably the most respected man in the entire freaking world.
JLP’s post only confirms my suspicion that Obamamania has some irrational elements to it, which is not a good omen for the Senator.
Comment by Bubs Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 3:44 pm
Bill Baar,
So far all of the Obama-Rezko thing is the appearance of a possible conflict, with no evidence at all of actual wrongdoing. Naturally that could change, but if it doesn’t, this story won’t have legs. Naturally an opposing candidate can say “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” but the same applies to Whitewater(Clinton), Keating (McCain), and Kerik (Giuliani). So at this point, it’s a minor obstacle. If concrete evidence of wrongdoing (specifically on Obama not on Rezko’s part) comes out, then of course everything changes.
Comment by realist Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 4:44 pm
Obama did not pay market price. Yeah yeah yeah - market price is what ever somebody will pay. Oh ah big deal.
Obama bought his house for $300 k under asking price. Rezko bought the vacant lot for the asking price. Obama paid Rezko 1/6 of the asking price for 1/6 of Rezko’s property which was something like 4 or 5 times the appraised value.
Something is fishy.
Comment by huh? Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 5:04 pm
Bill Baar
I assume your Q&A was from that silly Sun Times interview
They forgot to ask The O if he played poker with Antoin. Maybe next time.
Comment by HeKnowsBarack Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 5:13 pm
The R’s could make real hay out of the Reszko and Stroger crap on a national level, as they did about Whitewater. All of Hillary’s baggage has been aired out for over a decade. They are both disgustingly liberal, but if I had to choose one over the other, it would be Hillary. Say what you will about Hillary, but Slick Willey was the most fiscally conservative president we ever had. If she were to follow his policies, it could be good news for the budget, the economy and Social Security.
It would also be good not to have a foreign policy again.
But seriously, if I have to hear Obama pontificate on foreign policy one more time, I’l puke. He has done nothing, but is suddenly seen as an expert on everything.
All this could be mooot. If Hillary and the Messiah both run, they could split the ultra-liberal and female votes, opening the way for a more conservative Democrat. The best thing John Edwards can hope for is for both of them to stay in the race, as he would be the logical benefactor of the dilution of liberal voting strength.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 6:27 pm
We won’t vote for Hillary because she is expedient rather than authentic. She should have never baked those cookies– and she shouldn’t have voted to abdicate congressional responsibility to the president so we could be dragged into Iraq. I think she was smart enough to know it was a bad vote but base enough to go ahead and vote yes because it was popular and would be the politically safe move. I get the feeling she runs most of her political business that way…which is good for Hillary but not so good for her constituents.
The nation’s leader has to have a vision of the future and some ideas on how to get there. His next most important task is to choose knowledgable people for his cabinet and other sundry advisors — he has to be a judge of character and know which areas he needs lots of good advice in and who can help. He does not have to be omniscient or super experienced. I would like to meet his current staffers. Are they a bunch of mopes and lackeys or are they intelligent and hard working?
Comment by NoGiftsPlease Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 6:37 pm
Oh, it is too too cold outside. If Obama can bring really really mild winters to Chicago, then I’m in.
Seriously, though. He may be up against Giuliani, who has been called to head down to Mexico to help teach them about crime-fighting techniques. That’s very telling when you’ve got a potential candidate who has been called to come over and visit with an entirely different community than the United States community (in this case, our neighbor to the South) to help them out.
Obama is a charismatic idealist, which is a positive, but in the post 911 world, reminding everyone of the experience that past folks who ran for the nation’s highest office didn’t have won’t cut it now. Different world. Different needs.
Terrorists. Weapons of mass destruction possibly lurking out there. America as the sole superpower (hence the target of much jealousy and wrath from potential individual terrorists even aside from terror groups).
Folks, you are going to have to bring in someone who can handle a whole lot more than looking spiffy, smiling, being handsome, winning over the chicks (Oprah), and speaking in winning, Dr. Phil-like, idealistic terms.
He would do well to stay in the spotlight and continue to inpire people, but the absolute top job? If the defense hawks in the Bush Administration couldn’t fix the Iraq mess that cost the GOP losses from coast to coast, then what is an affable and charismatic fella like Obama going to bring to the table besides an excellent education, limited experience in the political arena, and a lot of feel-good idealist rhetoric?
He should take the opportunity to stay in the limelight and build a record of having actually DONE something.
And might I suggest promoting Lisa Madigan’s plan to get the hospitals to commit to some reasonable expectation of charity care? After all, he tells his fellow citizens that he’s “committed” to the issue. Commit harder, Senator, and then we’ll see that record being built up.
Don’t know about Tony, though. Seems this guy is just about in everyone’s business.
Comment by Angie Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 9:32 pm
If Senator Obama really truly wants to build up some type of solid record of achievement, here’s a link to a little story on an issue that Obama should be following closely…
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20222
“Legislation on the Way
Hamer did not state in his ruling how much charity care nonprofit hospitals had to provide, but Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) has announced plans to propose legislation that would mandate a minimum percentage of nonprofit hospitals’ care go toward charitable care as defined in the law.”
This is just one of the reasons as to why Attorney General Lisa Madigan got elected again; she is actually DOING something.
P.S. Don’t listen to the rhetoric from the IHA folks, because for a bunch of people purporting to be watching hospitals lose money, they sure can afford to pay the hospital CEO’s millions and even let them put fancy country club memberships with golf time on their expense accounts!
Losing money somewhere? Take a pay cut, then!
I’m waiting to hear Senator Rock Star speak out on this issue in a truly forceful way. Lisa is red hot in the minds of the voters, so teaming up to support her proposed legislation can only help the Senator, methinks.
Just a suggestion.
Comment by Angie (again) Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 10:29 pm
I’m not that concerned about experience. I favor term limits for national politicians anyhow, so experience isn’t a big deal.
Politics, on the other hand, matter.
From what I can tell, when you go beneath the hype, Obama brings nothing new. Yes, I was happy about that pork database bill, but in so many other ways he resembles the same old liberal platform.
Comment by Hal Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 11:16 pm
Obama is very charismatic. No one is above reproach. He has not been worked over yet by a highly professional organization. He should run for President in 2008. The bloom may be off the rose in 2012. It will be intersting to see what the Clinton war room does to him, if he runs.
Comment by Loyal Whig Friday, Dec 8, 06 @ 11:35 pm
Hillary for the # 1 slot with Barack as her Vice for the Democrat ticket
Rudy will be the GOP # 1 slot pick with Newt filling in as Vice
Comment by Billy The Kid Sunday, Dec 10, 06 @ 6:58 am