Sam, I didn’t think that list I posted would prove Obama had a better resume than McCain. The OP doesn’t mention McCain, but he does ask, “What can (or perhaps more relevantly, what SHOULD) [Obama] point to in order to prove to folks that he’s not just an empty suit?” I found a few things after searching for about 10 seconds in the most obvious place. It’s not meant to be a complete list of his accomplishments. How his resume compares to McCain’s is something each voter can decide for themselves, but it’s fatuous to complain that he hasn’t accomplished anything.
So I guess taking a resume apart and dismissing one item at a time might lead to an invalid conclusion.
Perhaps the fact that I described it as “brief CV extracted from www.barackobama.com” implied that t was meant to be a detailed account of his career. But if you’re sincere in your hope, maybe you could research that and get back to us.
It would be more accurate to say he has to convince Americans that a resume is only one factor to be considered, but I think most people of voting age are aware of that.
So he’s gone from having a weak resume to being Elmer Gantry, a narcissistic hypocrite, liar and fraud. OK then.
Sam while Obama has decent enough cv it is most appealing to many for what is absent. At this time when so many people are disgusted by what those with all the experience have been doing to this country, his lack of that sort of experience is actually a plus in perception.
We know what McCain would do in at least one crisis. He supported going into Iraq and supports staying there with no exit strategy other than an ill defined “victory” We know that he thinks singing “Bomb Bomb Iran” is cute. Sorry if that knowledge fails to reassure that his resume is useful.
But the basic truth is that Americans do not vote for a resume. If they did then the presumptive Democratic nominee would be Richardson or Biden. But neither of them are the likely nominees because resume isn’t what winning this job takes. Backbone it requires. The ability to inspire and to communicate a positive vision for the future of our country … that people vote for. Obama has those things and intelligence and the wisdom to hire the best possible team of advisors and mangers who share the same vision … and to consider what they say. Those attributes are less of what will get him elected but more of what will make him a great President.
You’re basically saying what I said - Obama, if he’s elected, will be elected for qualities other than his resume. McCain, if elected, will be elected on the strength of his resume. That’s just the way the race is going to play out. McCain’s going to play the experience card, and Obama will play the change card.
I’m not saying Obama won’t win. If I were betting today, that’s probably the way I’d bet. I’m just telling you how I think the Republicans are going to come at him, and it’s one of his two major liabilities, such that they are. The other is his liberal voting record. Expect the Republicans to play that card as well.
Obama, on the other hand, is going to try to tie McCain to the Bush administration, to the war in Iraq (unless it improves substantially before November), to the ‘failed policies of the past’, and in general paint him as part of the ‘old guard’ that got people into what he’s going to claim is the mess they are in. He’s the face of the future - the 21st century man with a vision and the will to see it carried out.
McCain will play the terrorism card. Obama will say we all need to reach out to each other. McCain will invoke Reagan and his optimism in America. Obama will say that America needs to do better, and he’s the guy to help it back onto the path of righteousness.
This is how the race will go down. That’s all I’m saying.
Not quite saying the same thing. McCain’s resume is amazingly light for all the years he’s been there. If McCain gets votes it will not be for his resume or experience but for his perceived authenticity and because America decides that Iraq was a good choice just poorly executed, not a bad choice from the start. His perceived authenticity has taken a few hits lately and I doubt that his version of Iraq will be bought by the majority, even though the surge has dampened the death toll.
No, what I’m saying is that a tactic of selling resume and experience will backfire badly. The experience of screwing things up is not what people want to vote for right now. But yes they will play that card since they have only those two to play.
That they will try to paint him as a liberal extremist … well duh. That’s tactic number one by any Republican against any Democrat. I don’t think it will sell but they will try. (Oh the few who still approve of Bush will buy it, but not too many more than that.) The bigger chance is that McCain may effectively cede much of the middle as he attempts to rev up the conservative base.
The terrorizing people with the terrorism card won’t do much as it fails to panic people quite as much now. It won’t get much traction. McCain may try to invoke Reagan’s optimism and Big Tent; Obama will express his own brand of optimism for today’s future and build a different Big Tent while McCain is trying to get America to wax nostalgic. Guess which one is more likely to resonante with today’s voters?
So maybe yes, that’s the way the race will go down, but that just illustrates the dire straits the Republicans are in this time. That’s all I’m saying.
I think his lack of “experience” is his biggest asset… he is not in the establishment and will be able to stir things up. He has certainly done a better job managing his campaign than Hillary who had no plan at all after Super Tuesday.
I think resumes and accomplishments are overrated. Borrowing a bit from George Will, which of these candidates is better suited for the presidency:
Candidate A was elected 5 times to the US House of Representatives, served as ambassador to Russia, then served a decade in the US Senate, then served as ambassador to Great Britain.
Candidate B was elected 4 times to his state legislature and 1 time to the US House of Representatives.
Most would say that A has accomplished a great deal more than B. But A is James Buchanan and B is Abraham Lincoln.
And that’s exactly how Obama will respond tonight. If he’s smart he’ll bring up his record in terms of when Clinton supported his efforts, and show that she can and is a very capable senator and that’s exactly what she should stay. If she satrts blathering about how she should be the next president, or saying phrases like, “when I’m president” she’ll look afool.
I know **Sam **already said these were the hypothetical questions of an uninformed voter, but I can’t help respond to just this one small part.
Obama was a Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. This is the highest title for people who are not full-time professors (Obama taught full-time classes from 1996-2004, but only one at a time at not every semester). The title is currently held by Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, and Diane Wood–not household names, but names that every lawyer knows. The University of Chicago is among the finest law schools–top ten if not top five. It is also considered the most conservative of the top law schools, Scalia’s old stomping ground, but he was beloved by both faculty and students. He taught not only Constitutional law, but also classes on race and the law.
To say he “taught Constitutional law” is actually to downplay that part of his resume. One of the reasons I support Obama is because we will be electing an outstanding legal scholar. Laurence Tribe, widely considered among the top legal minds in the country, has called him a brilliant legal mind for the work Obama did applying theoretical physics to legal concepts as a research assistant to Tribe. That is exactly the kind of President we need to clean up after the Bush administration.
You’re right - they’ve downplayed that aspect of his resume. You’re also right that it’s a good credential to have on his resume. I knew he had been a lecturer at the U of Chicago, but that’s as far as I dug into it.