Hillary Makes a Good Point
January 8th, 2008 at 05:34am Mark Noonan
If Obama is your man, you do have to get around this sort of thing - from Political Punch:
Perhaps hoping to pivot away from her unusual comments criticizing Sen. Barack Obama by comparing him to Martin Luther King Jr., who delivered great speeches, and herself to President Lyndon Johnson, who actually passed civil rights laws (Read more on that HERE). Clinton said the following this evening in Salem, N.H.:
“Today Senator Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me,” she said, according to ABC News’ Eloise Harper. “Basically he compared himself to two of our greatest heroes saying, ‘Well, they gave great speeches.’ President Kennedy was in the Congress for 14 years. He was a war hero. He was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. led a movement. He was gassed, he was beaten, he was jailed. And he gave a speech that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important ever delivered in America.
“And then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed because the dream couldn’t be realize until finally it was legally permissible for people from all colors and backgrounds and races and ethnicities to be accepted as citizens.”
Of course, Hillary’s resume’ is a bit thin, too - but Obama’s is really non-existent. He’s only slightly more credible, pound for pound, than I am; or any random American is. A basic fact about Obama: He’s an attractive, intelligent man who speaks well. Outside of that, the only thing he has going for him is the fact that he’s a media star - he’s mostly famous for being famous. Other than being a black version of Regis Philbin, there’s not much there.
The paucity of accomplishment among the ranks of senior Democrats is demonstrative of the fact that marketing is the most important thing in Democratic politics. Its how you look, not what you do; its how you talk, not what you say - Hillary’s in there ’cause she’s a woman; Obama’s in there ’cause he’s a black man; Edwards is in there ’cause he’s a good looking Southerner. The three of them, together, don’t have a record of accomplishment to compare with, say, Bill Clinton, or even Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale. Say what you will about Clinton, Carter and Mondale, at least they had a set of genuine accomplishments to their credit before they sought the highest office in our land. Each of the three leading Democrats are in their position because of the various calculations Democrats are making about what sort of Democrat might be able to attain 270 electoral votes.
We’ll see if the Democrats decide to think hard about this - Obama will look great as a Presidential candidate…but he’s going to have to actually run against a genuine GOP opponent who will want to win, and thus won’t let Obama off easy. Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and Thompson have all been in positions where actual decisions have had to be made - they’ve had to put at least their careers at risk (and McCain his very life at risk) based upon decisions they’ve made. Obama has had to decide between paper and plastic at the supermarket and whether or not to tell his wife if that dress makes her look fat - admirable and honorable things for a middle-class husband to concern himself with, but not the sort of stuff with which Presidents are made.
UPDATE: And Bill Clinton made an excellent point about Ron Paul supporters.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
22 Comments
1. Presidential election 200&hellip | January 8th, 2008 at 6:07 am
[…] Michael Cohen wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptBarack Obama by comparing him to Martin Luther King Jr., who delivered great speeches, and herself to President Lyndon Johnson, who actually passed civil rights laws (Read more on that HERE). Clinton said the following this evening in … Read the rest of this great post here Posted by […]
2. Parker | January 8th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Mark,
I don’t agree with many of your opinions here, but in this case I do have to agree that you make a valid point. None of the Democratic candidates can post even a marginal resume indicating their experience has prepared them for the Oval Office.
For me, it really depends on who gets the nomination on Republican side and how their campaign pans out. But as it stands today it looks as if I will be going GOP this year.
Also, the fact that Hillary is now resorting to crying as a means of garnering sympathy votes doesn’t really help her cause in my book either.
3. neocon | January 8th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I thought Romney hit the ball out of the park in the weekend debates and it strengthened my support for him, although I am still a little on the fence. I like his pragmatism and his business acumen, and his experience in the private and public sectors overshadow anything Obama, Clinton or Edwards have accomplished.
In my opinion he is also the most articulate of the Rep candidates and conveys a sense of confidence and optimism that plays well in the general. Rudy & Mccain are to much of single issue candidates and Huckabee is a little too liberal on some issues.
I think a debate between Obama and Romney would be worth watching.
4. Zach | January 8th, 2008 at 8:34 am
That would be a great idea Neocon. At first I was very interested in Romney, his confidence and his presidential “aura” if you will really drew me to him. But as I started to watch him closer, he just didnt strike my “genuine person” chord.
IMO, I think Romney would anihilate Obama in a debate. I still think back to the democratic debate where Obama failed to answer the question “do you support illegals getting a drivers lincense” at least three times before meagerly answering “yes”. I thought that that would be a punishing blow to his campaign, but so far he’s chugging along unscathed.
I still need alot of time before I could decide who my GOP candidate is. hmmmm
5. neocon | January 8th, 2008 at 8:48 am
I agree Zach. Romney would crush Obama in a debate. I think Romney can match Obama for his polished demeanor and articulation of the issues. I also think Romneys experience would begin to expose Obama for the lack of experience he really has.
Romney is the only GOPer that is truly multi-issue oriented. He has crafted a private sector solution to healthcare, has budgetary experience, has experience as a conservative in a liberal state, and his private sector experience is unmatched. This would lead me to believe he would be very good on foreign policy.
Just my opinion.
6. Joe | January 8th, 2008 at 8:54 am
All this talk about Obama not having any experience in this or that. If you people want experience, then vote for Richardson. He is the only one that has experience in Congress, Executive and Diplomacy.
It still amazes me that you people are so impressed with Romney. This guys views change with what people want to hear. There isn’t anything genuine about him.
Neocon, not sure if we were watching the same debate or not. I watched the one Saturday night and thought Romney did awful. I thought the others were pummeling him. I thought McCain had answers to him and outclassed him. To me, Romney looked like he was bumbling when he was confronted about his changing views and negative ads. He even flat out lied in saying that his ads never said McCain was for amnesty. I see that commecial 5 times a night and can tell you that it is said… multiple times.
Obama is not my first choice, but I’d be ok with him. No, he doesn’t have executive experience and that is a bit of an issue. To me, as long as the President is smart enough to surround himself with qualified people, that is more important. That is one thing that pissed me off about Bush after I voted for him in 2000.
7. Zach | January 8th, 2008 at 9:27 am
“To me, as long as the President is smart enough to surround himself with qualified people, that is more important.”
Actually, I agree with you Joe. Thats a very important issue that doesnt get the limelight that it deserves. I’ll have to admit though being a Bush supporter, I am, too at little distraught about who he’s surrounded himself this past seven years.
And yes, Romney had a bad night. He was pummeled with insults all night, and IMO was intentionaly playing the “please dont call me names card” most of the night, instead of standing up straight and firing back. Not exactly a strategy I would have chosen.
Really though, overall you have to admit his charisma is matched only by Obama.
8. neocon | January 8th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Zach & Joe,
I am speaking more of Sunday nights forum. Romney cleaned up.
9. Joe | January 8th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I didn ‘t see Sunday night, so maybe he did better. Saturday did not do him well in my opinion.
As I’ve said before, I am from Mass and really get sick to my stomach thinking of Romney in the White House.
His charisma is sure up there, but man, if you look back, this guy just speaks views on whoever is listening at the time. He has been the most inconsistent of the bunch. You can’t blast Kerry for flip-flopping in 2004 while you defend Romney as “growing and maturing” his views now without sounding hypocritical.
10. hermie | January 8th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Where is Obama’s supporting cast that he’ll be appointing to Cabinet posts and other Executive Branch positions? They all seem to be retreads from the Carter-Clinton years…Not exactly supporting his promise of ‘change’.
11. Joe | January 8th, 2008 at 9:52 am
hermie,
I don’t know about you, but I haven’t heard anything about what his cabinet would look like. You must have some inside position.
Maybe I could say… who is Romney’s supporting case? They all seem like retreads from the Bush I and Bush II years.
Who was Bush II’s support team? Retreads from Nixon and his father. That is the problem!
What are you trying to say??
My point was that any one candidate can not be a master of every little piece of being President. So when people bring up the issue of Obama having a lack of experience, it is a hollow complaint.
12. Zach | January 8th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I didnt see Sunday nights forum either.
Thats why I can’t decide on Romney, I get that feeling too when I hear him talk, he’s just pandering to his crowds. Of course, they all do that to an extent.
I live in Indiana so I obviously cant comment on first hand knowledge of Romney’s time as Govnah.
I find it interesting that Romney/Obama’s charisma is huge but Obama is the one that can reap that huge crowds. I suppose this is due to his so called “change” approach.
13. Joe | January 8th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Zach,
Obama’s draw is the under-30 crowd. Charismatic, young and speaking of better times. This is only a good thing regardless of your party affiliation. This is unseen since 1960.
Romney on the other hand may be charismatic, but there are way too many people like you that get the sense of his extreme pandering. Sure most pols do that, but not to the extent of ol’ Mitt.
If this country can start getting 60+% out to vote, things can only get better. There are reports already of the amazing number of people getting out to vote in NH. Nothing bad could come out of that.
14. SteaM | January 8th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Joe,
Obama’s also got us 30-somethings as well. I am only 30 but still, you said under-30.
Just sayin’
15. Joe | January 8th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I hope most of 30+ are going to vote. It is the under-30’s that quite often have stayed home and didn’t care who was running that I was talking about. It is just refreshing to see <30’s getting excited.
But you are correct… he does also have the 30-somethings something to be excited about as well. Again, something refreshing to see.
16. Web Smith | January 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Here’s some background on Obama that should give you some food for thought.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/obamas_alinsky_jujitsu.html
17. Christopher Estep | January 8th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I made this very point almost a year ago on my previous blog in calling him out as Barack Obamakova .
He’s good looking but he hasn’t really done anything in his “sport” to be proud of. Heck, anyone can beat Alan Keyes.
It’s fun to be prescient once in a while.
18. a good american | January 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Liberal Professors everywhere are celebrating their glorious achievement. After years of feeding impressionable young minds lectures of the glory days of the 60’s and the anti-establishment movement, they have created a generation of young people eager to make their own mark on the world by voting in the first African American President. I doubt any of these new voters can tell you where Obama stands on the issues. They’re too busy downloading music to their IPods, playing the latest version of Guitar Hero and watching the Cobert Report. God help us all.
19. Joe | January 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
that is right good american… them damn youngins causing all kinds of problems with that there rock music and all. That stuff is the music of the devil!!!! And it is them liberal professors that are the root of all problems!
Obviously, them GOP folks are the only ones that understand the ways of the world.
Blaming the “Liberal professors” is a foolish stance to take. You don’t think that maybe younger folks are just sick of the status quo in Washington and want to vote for someone that is charismatic? I’ll give you that a lot of 18-25 yos maybe are voting with what they want to believe in and not really watching the issues, but to blame is on all the liberal professors is a bit foolish.
20. phnx | January 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
“Blaming the “Liberal professors” is a foolish stance to take. You don’t think that maybe younger folks are just sick of the status quo in Washington and want to vote for someone that is charismatic?” Joe
This statement of yours is really inane Joe. According to those who heard him speak, Hitler was charismatic, and so were Castro and Mao.
“I’ll give you that a lot of 18-25 yos maybe are voting with what they want to believe in…”
Its a good thing that the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and Santa Claus aren’t running, otherwise these young skulls of mush would have a REAL tough choice.
“… and not really watching the issues, but to blame is on all the liberal professors is a bit foolish.”
So are you saying that liberal professors can’t be blamed for failure to teach critical thinking to their students? Or are you saying that they can’t be blamed for propagandizing their students instead of educating them? Which is it?
21. Sunny | January 9th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Joe, I agree with your points regarding the young voters. I know way too many people in the 40s through 60s who do not have a clue as to who are the candidates and where they stand on the issues. They only care if there is a “R” or “D” behind their name. I voted for the first time when I was 21 - that was the age you could vote at that time. I would say that young people today probably know more of what is happening in the world that many adults who have voted for years. If we have no probem sending our young people to fight and die in a war at 18, we need to shut the hell up about them voting at that age.
22. Albert Franklin | January 9th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Hillary the her Democratic machine seem to be exposed by the Bank of New’s latest scandal involving Sentinel Management Group, Inc. When the party gets deeply connected to the Subprime Housting Market Housing Market Bust, for playing Hedged Monte-Carlo, what will happen to Obama, as he too gets sucked in?