His ethics reform, by all serious accounts, was a major accomplishment. Certainly more major than anything McCain or Hillary have done in recent years.
There is never enough in these sorts of debates. [rickman]Hhhhhhhhhhowever.[/rickman]
The government transparency work is significant, and dovetails nicely with the his philosophy, as stated in his book and currently turning well-paid postgrads into drooling morons, if you listen to the muttonheads who have seized the national microphones. If we want to change how government works, we need to KNOW how government works and what the Sam Hill it is doing all the time. His ideas on “ipod government”, the somewhat silly term aside, are very interesting. Make government services more public, and less waste will occur. Make government expenditures more accessible, and less waste will occur. And the key here is, he went to the senate, and got a bill passed that moves directly toward this goal. It appears that his state legislative experience has carried over. If not distracted by a presidential run, I would have expected him to be a legendary Senator. If he does not go all the way to the Oval Office, I expect him to go back and continue such work.
He’s shown the ability to advance unpopular efforts in the face of powerful opponents, and even get them to grudgingly support the result. Here I am thinking of the videotape confession legislation in Illinois (discussed in fawning detail here), and ethics reform in the Senate.
Constantly his political opponents describe him in grudgingly glowing terms. He is a compromise artist but more importantly a persuader. And I think that his campaign so far speaks very highly of his skill as a manager.
Note that I have not once mentioned that he can shake the rafters and get a million people to send him money, that he writes intelligently and thoughtfully about goals that most politicians have spent careers covering with a fine greasy sheen, and that he is almost preternaturally cool under the combined pressure of two national party establishments. Well, just now I mentioned that stuff. But I hadn’t up till then.
Not really the point of the analogy though. Obviously Obama has been a more successful candidate then Clarke or Thompson. My point is that before anyone got to see how Clarke or Thompson preformed as actual candidates, people could ascribe to them any qualities they wanted. Clarke’s war record and debating skills or Thompsons acting and folksiness were thought to make them unstoppable, until, as you say, people actually saw them in action and they flopped.
Similarily, I worry that people ascribe to Obama abilities, not as a candidate, but as a President, which there isn’t evidence of. Again, read Phlosphr’s link, I think its informative. It’s a dream list of things Democrats (and in most cases, everybody)like to see a president do or qualities we’d like them to have. But while passing an ethics reform bill and such are nice, I don’t think they really provide any evidence that Obama is a particularly successful or effective politician.
Serious question then- what would? What do politicians do apart from passing bills, assembling and managing staffs, negotiating compromises, and giving speeches? And, OK, occasionally looking into people’s souls?
What part of Clinton’s or McCain’s record suggests they will be better?
As far as I can tell, McCain’s decades in the Senate have produced very little in the way of landmark legislation. His biggest success was campaign finance reform. And that is a big success. But I’m not sure that even outweighs Obama’s Senate accomplishments.
Similarly, Hillary has passed very little in the way of important legislation. She talks a good game, but what has she really done?
This blog post contains a lot of discussion and useful links to Obama’s accomplishments. I’m not one to vote for a President based on legislative accomplishments, but if you are, it’s worth a read.
It’s also worth considering how successful Obama was when he was in the minority of the Illinois Senate. I think his 12 years of elective office contain more accomplishments than Hillary’s 8, and that’s even if you discount his Illinois accomplishments significantly.
One of the reason’s I like Obama is because he knows that he’s a blank slate on which they can inscribe their values… he says that in The Audacity of Hope.
Really? That’s all? I actually thought there might be a bit more than that.
Seriously, guys - if a Republican candidate for President had a resume this thin, you’d be all over it. So he has a law degree from Harvard - along with hundreds of people who graduate every year. President of the Harvard Law Review means he’s smart - but we already knew that.
“Practiced as a civil rights lawyer”. So what? And for how long? This sounds like the kind of experience every liberal who ever graduated from a law school gets under their belt. Did he have any significant accomplishments in the role? Something that made him stand out from the thousands of other civil rights lawyers? And how long did he do this for?
“Taught Constitutional Law”. Be careful with this one. We don’t want any resume padding. Was he a professor? Or an assistant professor? Or a full time or part time teacher at an accredited school? Or did he just give the odd guest lecture or two on something to one of the local law schools?
“Served in Illinois State Senate for 8 years” - this is his best credential, because 8 years means he actually had to get re-elected. So that’s a point in his favor - but still pretty thin. And I hope there were a lot more legislative accomplishments than the three you mentioned, because that’s not much for 8 years of service.
As for his time in the Senate in Washington, he really doesn’t have much to show. “transparency in government” is nice, but it’s not exactly welfare reform or work on the Intelligence Committee.
What kind of executive experience does Obama have? Has he shown that he can run anything? Has he sat on the board of any charitable organizations? Run any businesses?
Seriously, you need better answers than these, because this is what Republicans are coming at you with. And these are reasonable questions. Don’t you think a president should typically be someone with exceptional experience and qualifications?
I remember not long ago when we were talking about Fred Thompson, and a number of current Obama supporters were claiming that he didn’t have enough experience to be President. Well, his resume makes Obama’s look paper thin. Most of you criticized George Bush’s resume when he was running - and he had a graduate degree from Yale, was a fighter pilot, ran several businesses, and was a two term governor of a large state.
And look who you are going up against: John McCain has been at the center of American politics for over 20 years. A decorated war hero, jet pilot, 22 years in the Navy, 21 years in the Senate, a graduate of both the Naval Academy and the War College, spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war.
You can bet that this is going to be McCain’s prime campaign strategy. He’s going to repeatedly compare and contrast his resume against Obama’s. Maybe Obama can overcome these differences, but putting aside your policy preferences and the oratorical skills of both men, you have to admit that on paper McCain totally outclasses Obama. That doesn’t mean Obama can’t win, but it does mean that this is his natural liability and he’s going to have to work his ass off to overcome it.
It’s a fair question in general, but the guy was expecting to be there discussing the campaign and where it’s going at the moment, and of course toss in some general boosterism. One can easily support Obama, as I do, without memorizing the details of his legislative history. I have looked into it, gone through the list of bills he’s introduced and supported, and decided that I’m more than satisfied. But I certainly didn’t memorize anything.
Sure, the guy could have been more prepared, but it really seemed like Matthews was trying to turn the whole discussion into a debate about whether Obama even had any legislative accomplishments, just because he managed to catch a campaign surrogate off guard. Personally, I would have loved to see the guy show Matthews up for the jackass he was being (c’mon, he’s from Texas, I thought we weren’t supposed to be able to mess with Texas), but if I ever failed a pop quiz back in college, nobody suggested that my ineptitude was any indication that we ought to doubt that PV does indeed equal nRT, or whatever.
Sam, your questions indicate that you know very little of Obama’s history. It’s pretty hard to take you seriously when you’ve obviously never even looked at his bio. I get that part of coming to this forum is to get informed, but seriously man, before arguing that his record is so thin, you might want to actually look at it. Instead of relying on a resume someone posts for him in this forum, why don’t you do a little research, eh?
It will be much more efficient than us answering each of your questions point-by-point.
Also, please point us to McCain’s major legislative accomplishments. Ideally, the ones you most support.
It’s a pretty effective way of pre-poisoning the well. If you’re knowledgeable enough to defend Obama against attack, you’re a cult follower. If you can’t, you’re a demonstration that he lacks substance.
Be that as it may, this one made me go :dubious:
Sam Stone, do your friends really co-author legislation - to the point that laws are named for them? That is pretty impressive.
The ethics reform was truly worthwhile, as was the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act - the latter co-authored with the (highly) Republican Senator Coburn. Being able to reach across the aisle to find common ground to build legislation is quite an accomplishment, IMHO.
Just to equally apply Sam’s logic to McCain:
we have lots of these. And they are awesome. I bet that a small, small percentage would make good Presidents.
ditto. Is running the government like flying a jet? I guess it must be. I don’t want a politician flying my plane, and maybe vice versa.
again, this is relevant? If it is, we have thousands of other potential presidents wandering around. Probably a few sleeping under bridges.
Ding! I’ll grant you this one. He’s been a pretty good senator and has been re-elected many times. I actually like the guy as a Senator. But there are tons of long-term Senators that don’t have the stuff to be President. This experience is as arguable as Obama’s legislative experience. Obama’s certainly taken a lot less long to make a splash in the Senate.
Seriously dude. Apply your “harvard law” argument to every one of these except “21 years in the senate”.
unfortunately too many of these around, but still, a lot. An important and certainly harrowing experience. But proof that he would be a good president how, exactly?
So yeah, if you want, we could tear both of these guys down on the relevance of their experience. McCain has longevity going for him, Obama has personal charisma going for him. Around and around we go.
I know a fair bit about Obama’s background. I was listing questions that Republicans are going to throw at you. They are going to repeatedly point out that Obama is completely untested in terms of executive experience, has no foreign policy experience, has very little federal government experience, and no one knows how he would react in a real crisis. He may be brilliant, or an utter disaster. But you can’t tell which one he’d be by reading his resume. This has risks. John McCain represents stability. He may not do anything truly outstanding, but you can guess that he won’t make any huge blunders, either. He’s a true American Hero who has one of the highest approval ratings in the U.S. Senate and has for 20 years. He broke with his own party on Iran/Contra, on campaign finance reform, on Bush’s tax cuts, on spending and earmarks, and on the handling of the Iraq war. As a result, he has a reputation for honesty and character. That’s the resume he’s going to put up against Barack’s.
If Obama wants to win, he has to convince Americans to elect him in spite of his resume, not because of it.
Oh, I didn’t realize these were the questions of some hypothetical Republican. I’m glad I didn’t spend time answering them!
In any case, McCain doesn’t have any executive experience either. His foreign policy experience is limited to having served overseas and on Senate Committees. Obama lived overseas too, you know.
The case Obama will make is simple. Experience in the Senate doesn’t mean good judgment. Most Americans know that. McCain has had bad judgment, especially on foreign policy. He will be forced to defend a very unpopular war. That argument won’t win over the 30% of people who still support Bush, but it will be enough.
Now this a legitimate line of argument, festooned with shiny bits to appeal to a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. I think it’s kind of weak- I’m not sure why this pants-wetting unstable time-bomb moment has not happened just yet for Obama, but I guess you never know.
It’s the kind of thinking that gets you John Kerry or Bob Dole. But the warm fuzzies will occasionally get you George W. Bush or Jimmy Carter. So I understand its appeal.
Obaaaamaaaa! He’s risky! In nine months he might turn into Dennis Rodman!
Yes, but such achievements speak to courage, skill, and dedication. You respect people who accomplish these things. It’s hard work, and only the best candidates make it.
It’s not any one thing - a resume is a collection of achievements which, when put together help you get a picture of who that person is and what they are capable of doing. McCain’s is simply better.
He’s made a splash in the Senate primarily through his oratorical skills, and his high profile. There is no doubt that he’s a compelling man. He projects an image of rationality and high intelligence. I rather like the Obama I see on TV from time to time.
But if I were a Republican or an independent, I’d be looking at McCain’s resume and going, “Damn. That guy’s been through hell for his country. And he’s one of the good guys - an honest politician. He deserves a shot at this.” And then I’d be looking at Obama and marveling at his magnetic personality, and waver. The romantic in you really wants to take that leap and take a swing for the fences with a radical choice - someone who could really shake up the system.
Basically, the contest is going to be McCain’s resume against Obama’s brains and high oratory. The old warhorse against Elmer Gantry. It’ll be a fun race to watch, anyway.
Previous experience seems to be a very poor predictor of outcomes in office. I am tempted to do a quantitative study to show this empirically, but outcomes during office can be a very difficult beast to quantify.
I think that most Americans, and most people, intuitively know this. All of the hand-waving about his resume is just not going to get very much traction. This sort of muddy reasoning is a great way to confirm one’s existing beliefs about a candidate, but given how subjectively one can interpret a resume, it really does not generate much heat. After all, my opinion of McCain is so low, that the sun rising every day might continue to convince me that he is a complete douche.
If only we had someone with, say, a distinguished and decorated military career followed by decades of public service. I’m sure that would work out great.
We’ll never see another candidate with a resume as good as John Kerry’s. I don’t think Obama would let his opponents turn his accomplishments into liabilities the way Kerry did, nor would the press in 2008 be the willing accomplices they were in 2004. But let’s not pretend that people ragging on Obama for lacking experience would respect his accomplishments if only there were more of them.
Another accomplishment: his name appears in the title of 12 threads on the front page of this forum. I mean, whoah. Full disclosure, one of those references is his wife.
I do, and I’m sure you do. But “respect” was not what I saw from John Kerry’s opponents regarding his considerable accomplishments.
No, but he does have time on the Foreign Relations Committee, Veteran’s Affairs Committee, Health, Education, Labor & Pension Committee and the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee.
Well, he can run a crack campaign 
Technically, Obama and his folks need to have answers to these since it’s unlikely that I’ll be asked by any Republicans what Obama has done. And I’m pretty sure Obama already knows what his past was, what sort of instructor he was and what qualifies him.