So there’s some discussion in certain circles on how Texas state Senator Kirk Watson, an Obama supporter being interviewed on MSNBC, couldn’t name any accomplishments of his chosen candidate as a senator.
While he “recanted” /apologized later, it’s certainly something that the opposition could very well use against him in the general election. How should Obama combat this? What can (or perhaps more relevantly, what SHOULD) he point to in order to prove to folks that he’s not just an empty suit?
Well, what did Ross Perot ever do, and look at all the votes he got with no party to support him.
I have told people I support Obama because I’ve read his books and heard him speak, and he’s clearly an intelligent, thoughtful person with good ideas, and a man of integrity, etc. I doubt many people could name the specific accomplishments of any senator.
First of all it has nothing to do with Obama - it has to do with Senator Kirk Watson. Watson knows full well why he’s supporting Obama and your OP suggests he’s flying blind. He’s perfectly clear on why he supports Obama, and knows full well his record. Just because he couldn’t name something in a 3.5 second sound bite doesn’t mean he can’t if you sit and have a conversation with the man.
The Clinton campaign will use it as much as they can (in fact they’ve already started), and you can expect to hear about it at the debate tomorrow. It reinforces a criticism some people have made about Obama. He can rebut it pretty easily by talking about what he did in the Illinois Senate - and I believe the specific question was about what he did there - and what he’s done in the U.S. Senate.
There’s this bipartisan effort to make Obama supporters look like clueless idiots. The establishment is fighting back! But what did we expect? Nobody said it would be easy.
To paraphrase Toby Ziegler, from The West Wing, he should tell, if only because it’s the easiest thing to remember, the truth: He’s done plenty.
This is Obama’s biggest weakness - lack of substance. So far, he’s gone a long way on his charisma, intelligence, and speaking style. But his resume sucks for a presidential candidate. Hell, it sucks for a Vice Presidential candidate. A few years in a state Senate, half a term as a Senator in Washington, and that’s about it. No foreign policy experience, no executive experience, no major legislative accomplishments. There are about 500 people in my city right now with better resumes than his, including several friends of mine.
Not really, but that’s the meme, and far be it from me to get in the way.
While Obama’s resume is not as jam-packed with the full range of experience(s) many consider are the only ones a presidential candidate should have (candidates and non-candidates alike), it was up to Watson to apprise himself of what there was.
Watson’s lack of knowledge about what Obama has actually should not reflection on Obama, although the media, Clinton and the Replicans will play it that way.
Is Chris Matthews trying to curry favor with the Clinton campaign or something? I think both campaigns should be able to find common ground and agree that Matthews is just trouble-making jerk, and that all staff and surrogates from both camps should boycott his show (and hell, all of MSNBC for that matter, even as decent as Olbermann is).
Talk about a bullshit interview. If Obama himself couldn’t answer the question, or if, say Ted Kennedy, an Obama supporter as well as a Senate colleague who should be familiar with these things, couldn’t come up with anything, that would be noteworthy. But to have a Texas State Senator involved with the campaign on TV to talk about the Wisconsin win and the future of the race, then demand a list of Obama’s legislative accomplishments before proceeding doesn’t say a damn thing. I got disgusted before finishing the clip, but it seemed that he allowed the Clinton person to join in without requiring her to have memorized any specific Hillary arcana. What a fucking douchebag.
And, as I understand it he’s been just as obnoxious in his anti-Hillary crap up until now, though I haven’t bothered to check out the videos myself. Either way, as a lifelong and proud Bostonian, I still detest the prick for using the mere existence of my city as proof that New Hampshirites are racist while defending his idiotic “methinks paleface speaks with forked tongue” remarks. Though, to be fair one could hardly expect him to say “the voters seemed to have felt sympathy for Hillary after a bunch of ridiculous commentary by the media, especially that pompous ass Chris Matthews, mocking her for a small show of emotion.”
Here’s a brief CV extracted from www.barackobama.com:
[ul]
[li]Worked as a community organizer with a church-based group seeking to improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment.[/li][li]Earned a law degree from Harvard.[/li] - First African-American president of Harvard Law Review.
[li]Practiced as civil rights lawyer.[/li][li]Taught constitutional law.[/li][li]Served in Illinois State Senator for eight years.[/li] - Worked with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state.
With TONS of respect… isn’t that how the meme spreads? I think the meme needs constant snoping ™. Just like the Muslim thing. And other silly allegations… this one needs to be discussed with REAL information, instead just a parroting of talking points.
It was an obvious ambush. This is a state senator. Let me be clear… a senator to the state legislature. A relative lightweight - most of ours are. And he blanked.
In the spirit of fairness… Chris Matthews ran a segment today on Hardball that helped balance things out and struck, I thought, a good tone. And he’s making an important point. I support Obama, but the cultishness of some followers disturbs me deeply.
I see any reference to “cultish” behavior as nothing more than a viral infection.
It’s hardly an unfair or unreasonable question. If someone says they’re a supporter of a candidate, it makes sense that they’re basing their support at least partly on the candidates past political accomplishments. So, asking what those accomplishments are seems a natural question. It’s hardly an “ambush”.
What has Hillary accomplished?
Most people can’t summon up specific information that they didn’t know they’d be asked. Hell, I’d have a hard time telling you my own accomplishments without checking my performance reviews and time sheets!
Yea, but it’s not like Matthews was demanding that the senator give a specific name or bill number of legislation Obama has passed. I’m sure just a general or even vague answer of what types of actions Obama took in his earlier career would’ve been successful. Watson didn’t know because the fact is Watson isn’t supporting him based on Obama’s past actions, but based on what Watson believes Obama will do, and its hard to tell what empirical evidence there is for that belief.
Read the link provided by Phlosphr up thread about why Watson supports Obama. It’s all things he thinks Obama will do, there isn’t any mention of things he has already done.
Personally I’m worried that Obama is going to be another Wesley Clarke or Fred Thompson. A cypher that people are basically free to attach whatever qualities or abilities they’d like a candidate to have, since there isn’t any evidence to the contrary, until that person actually has to do something, and then it turns out they aren’t the hoped for uber-candidate they were billed as.
How’s that going to happen for Obama, exactly? Thompson and Clark both bombed in the primaries because they absolutely sucked as candidates. They were blank slates for a little while, but when people got a look a tthem, they decided there was nothing there. The more people look at Obama, the more they seem to like him.