Is Obama Naive?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, BarackOr is it the audacity of hope?
Even as Obama has drawn virtually even with Hillary Clinton in some early-state polls, he still faces doubts from would-be supporters on whether he can deliver on his vision.In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Iowa Democrats regarded Clinton as the stronger leader, by 36% to 28%, and the more experienced, by 45% to 9%. But 56% valued a new direction and new ideas even more.
“Change” vs. “experience.” That’s what we’re looking at. Of course they’re both just marketing messages because neither person claiming those things can actually prove that they have either.
Sure, Obama talks change, but can he really do it?
Sure, Hillary says she has experience, but a lot of people are calling BS on the idea that her time as First Lady counts.
Here’s how one voter challenged Obama on his idea of changing the dialogue:
Challenging Obama face-to-face last week, [Stan] Potratz said, “You can talk better than the other people. [But] there’s a certain unreality about listening to you.”“I don’t think those Republicans are going to roll over and play dead,” continued Potratz, who sells sheep-farming supplies. “You can be nice to them, but is that going to work?”
The first-term senator assured Potratz he’s not naive. Obama said he’s accustomed to Chicago’s rough-and-tumble politics. He said he knows how to stand his ground, but would invite Republicans and independents into the fold.
“What I know is you don’t start out by making enemies, you start out by looking for allies. And, then, if you find enemies, you knock ‘em down,” Obama said. “That’s part of how I want to break the gridlock.”
After 16 years of bloody partisan warfare, it’s courageous to suggest that a simple change in rhetoric can bring about change, but that doesn’t mean it’ll happen. Because that’s the thing about audacity…it works both ways and just being brave isn’t always enough.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 26th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack. 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.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:47 am
How did i miss your lengthy commentary on Clinton’s “experience”?
At least you mentioned one very notable and truthful thing about Hillary- her “experience” has just been a marketing message.
I continue to be stunned that Americans are SOOOO stupid that they just blindly believe the marketing campaigns of the candidates (Hillary in particular) and ignore the facts. It’s mind boggling. This is the first primary I’ve ever paid attention to, and i am truly amazed by how stupid democrats are. Amazing. They think Hillary’s the most experienced, but the truth is that Biden Dodd and Richardsen cream her in that regard. Dems think she’s the most electable (WHAT????) even though all the polls show that Edwards or Obama are.
Do democrats pay any attention at all to facts or reality?
Just wonderin’.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I think Obama’s blather about reaching out to others, etc. is extremely naive. He also implies that Bill Clinton did not do this and was attacked as a result. On the contrary, one of Bill’s biggest mistakes was reaching out to the other side and appointing the Republican Louie Freeh to head the FBI. The media rhpasodized about Freeh, called him a choirboy, etc.
How did Freeh repay Clinton? Freeh undermined his presidency at every turn, sucking up to the right wing nutters in Congress (His dream was to be on the Supreme Court). He was a big factor in promoting the bogus scandals against Clinton, as well as the Wen Ho Lee debacle. This was also tied to trashing Clinton in an effort to support the entirely bogus charge that the Clinton campaign had sold secrets to the Chinese in return for campaign cash. (The secrets he supposedly gave them were actually obtained by China during previous Republican administrations.
On top of all that, Freeh was a terrible FBI director, refusing to computerize, showboating by having Richard Jewell treated as a suspect in the Olympic bombing, etc.