Thinkin’bout Stuff

Thought this would be a good night to republish thoughts from February 12, 2007 –

——————————————————————–

I have to ask. Tough question in a PC world, but I really have to ask. What makes Barack Obama a legitimate candidate for president?

Sure, anyone can be a candidate. According to the United States Constitution, even I can be a candidate for president, although as an Independent it is very unlikely I’d have a chance even if I was the best person for the job. You might point to Ross Perot or Ralph Nadar as people with limited qualifications who were candidates for president; but let’s face it, they were never legitimate candidates. Amusing distractions? Sure. Potential spoilers? Perhaps. But would we have ever seen a President Perot or President Nadar… unlikely.

But Barack Obama is different. This man has a legitimate chance to win his party’s nomination over a somewhat weak field of candidates currently led by another candidate with questionable credentials for the job, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Why?

OK, I admit it, I like the guy. I don’t agree with many of his positions, but he definitely appears to have the charisma to attract followers and presents logical arguments for his positions; but why does that qualify him to be president?

Was it his seven years serving in the Illinois state senate? Quick, name three state senators from your home state. Can you even name one? Can you identify one that you think should be considered for a presidential run? Of course not. There is virtually nothing that a state senator would experience or learn that would provide the necessary experience or establish the necessary credentials that would lead any of us to believe they are ready to be the next President of the United States.

Was it his two years as a United States Senator? Many would argue, me included, that the skill set necessary to be a senator is not transferable to a governance role like president. We have not had a president elected directly from the Senate since JFK for good reason.

Was it his brave stand against the war that he apparently made while an Illinois state senator? The Reuters headline proclaims:

Obama says he opposed Iraq war from start

That was quite the risk he was taking considering all the evidence supporting the contention that Hussein had or was close to having WMDs and planned to use them and share them with terrorists; the evidence that Hussein actually was funding terrorist organizations and paying the families of suicide bombers for the “service” of their sons and daughters; the clear and indisputable human right violations that were occurring in Iraq including torture, rape, and mass murder, something I would imagine Barack Obama would oppose.

And yet, not really much of a risk since he did not need to tell anyone of his opposition until now when the political winds are filling the sails of those tacking to the left. How wonderful life would be if we could all wait until years after a decision is made to announce our position on that decision.

I’m not disputing his claim that he was opposed to the war from the start; I just don’t see announcing historical positions as bolstering his qualification for president. Perhaps he’d like to let us know his position on the D-Day invasion or the dropping of an atomic bomb on Japan to end the war in the Pacific.

But what makes Barack Obama a legitimate contender for the Democrat nomination for president? That’s right, you know it and I know it, it’s because he’s … a celebrity. (You thought I was going to say “African-American” didn’t you?)

You see, we like celebrities in this country; heck, some of us worship them. And yes, his celebrity status is due in no small part to the color of his skin (although that still amazes me that anyone cares what color skin we have…   it’s skin, get over it.) But it is much more than the color of his skin, otherwise we might be discussing Al Sharpton as a serious candidate.

Barack Obama is a communicator; and whether you agree with his positions or not, he is just the kind of candidate who could get elected in this popularity contest we call the Presidential Election. I continue to hope that we will be able to find a president who is qualified to lead and who is prepared to make the tough decisions to ensure the security of our nation; leave the popularity contests to class president and state senator.

Unfortunately, Obama already seems to have lost perspective on who our enemies are and who our allies are (from the same Reuters article):

Obama also had a sharp response for Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a Bush ally who said Obama’s proposals would create chaos in the Middle East.

“I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory,” Howard said on Nine Network television.

Obama said it was “flattering” for a Bush ally to attack him the day after he formally launched his presidential bid but noted Australia had contributed 1,400 troops to the war compared to 140,000 U.S. troops.

“If he’s ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq,” he said. “Otherwise it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.”

Prime Minister Howard was expressing his view that Obama’s proposals on Iraq would aid the cause of terrorists, sending the message that the United States is not prepared to stand by their commitments in the region and will turn and run if hit hard enough. In other words, leaving Iraq would reinforce the message sent to the terrorist community in Somalia under President Clinton.

In response, Obama essentially told Howard to either send more troops or shut up. Is this how President Obama will respond to criticism from our friends? By essentially calling them irrelevant? Interesting that Ambassador Bolton was tough on our enemies, was criticized by the left and driven out of the UN; bet we don’t hear any criticism of Obama’s “diplomatic” approach to one of our top allies.

This highlights the fact that, although a good communicator, Barack Obama has a lot to learn about relationships with our friends and decisions concerning the content of the messages he communicates in public; we can not afford on-the-job training in a world where our true friends, such as Australia and Great Britain, are so critical to our success in the war against the terrorists.

Update:  Aussie News & Views responds to Obama. (Hat tip to Wake Up America)  An excerpt:

Barack Obama is either very badly advised or a complete fool to smear Australia by implying via his comments we are not carrying our share of the load or not putting our money where our mouth is in Iraq.

He has neglected to acknowledge Australia (not Austria, thats over near Germany) also has troops in Afghanistan,Timore,Soloman Islands,Egypt and SAS in the Philippines,it would seem that Obama like so many on the left in the USA and Australia see nothing worthwhile in acknowledging that commitment to peace keeping, in a region of the world where the most populace Muslim nation on earth,Indonesia,is but a stones throw from Australia’s northern doorstep,Darwin, in other words Barack our defence forces are flat out like lizards drinking.

I wonder does Barack Obama know how many personnel Australia has in its defense forces,I wonder does he know the population of Australia and the size of the country, I hope the answer is no he does not, to both questions,that way he could only be labeled an ignorant fool and not a malicious mischief maker attempting to make cheap political capital by smearing Australia’s defense forces for implying they are not doing enough in Iraq.

Stumble it!

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 28th, 2008 at 6:03 pm and is filed under Election 2008, Obama, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.