The "Experience" Critique...Critiqued

When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what's wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It's not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won't. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn't "hope" they can't break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can't break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge.

-- Roseanne on Hillary versus Obama

Not to give Roseanne (nowhere known for being of sound or prescient political mind) too much heed, here is what is wrong with her experience critique-- In all of the examples she gives, she is of course correct; you want the experienced pilot, mechanic, doctor or lawyer because those jobs are, by nature, quite technical. And when it comes to public servants, she would also be correct. If you were voting for who would be the better member of congress or senator, then there is a certain level of technician that is required. Studying the records of both Clinton and Obama, I would not hesitate to say that if I were voting in a senatorial election, I would consider voting for Clinton because she has demonstrated the technical wherewithal of a legislator. (However, this technical wherewithal has not been demonstrably more impressive than Obama's in a much shorter period.)

Roseanne and most others who emphasize the issue of "experience" almost unfailingly, yet fundamentally, misunderstand the role of the presidency. A president is not a technician. The office of the presidency does not come with a manual, there is no federal code to guide the day-to-day operations of the White House. A president is rather, a leader; one who moves, directs and inspires others toward action. In such a role, inspiration is every bit as important, if not more important than experience or technical knowledge and/or ability.

This is why legislators are rarely directly elected to the presidency. It hasn't been since Kennedy in 1960 that a sitting legislator was elected president. It also makes this year's election historically more interesting considering that the presumptive Republican nominee and and the two Democratic frontrunners are all sitting senators. Usually the nation opts for a governor who has run a government. Usually these governors are not exemplaries of legislative technicians (perhaps Jimmy Carter notwithstanding) but rather of leaders who can broadly inspire. This is why people are also drawn to Obama--because of this ability to deal at a level beyond the bureaucratic minutae that most people do not understand and speak at a level of broader abstraction that reaches in and grabs at people.

The role of the president is to set an agenda for the country and to lead towards completion of that agenda. They are wise to leave the technical work to the legislative technicians of congress, which is why Roseanne's point makes a great argument for keeping Clinton in the senate.

Strategy

While I have not been updating and writing as much as I would like, it does not mean that I have not been thinking and mulling over some of the interesting happenings going on in the political realm. I have found recently that what a lot of people are talking about is the Clinton campaign's charges of plagiarism against Obama. Yesterday (pre-Wisconsin and Hawaii) it was suggested by a colleague of mine that this charge by the Clinton campaign reeked of desperation. I disagreed (and still disagree) and here is why:

• I think it possibly is a brilliant political move-- of course the alleged plagiarism is not a big deal-- but thats not the point-- the point is that this meaningless story has dominated the news cycle now for a good two days and it puts Obama on the defensive- it takes away from the story about the demise of her campaign or Obama's momentum and makes him defend something that seems silly to have to defend.
• Also, if he is going to argue that words mean something and that he has the power to move people with his words, its worthwhile to ask whether or not they are truly his words-- which is what Hillary needs. She needs people to stand back and take a second look and say--well, even if we are prepared to vote for "just words" are we prepared to vote for "just words" that are not even his?
• Now, I don't think there is much validity in that argument, but perhaps some people will, and in any case, its a win for Hillary that we are talking about Obama and asking him to defend his speeches (what he is known for) instead of talking about her husband Bill going off the deep end and attacking a heckler and pro-lifers this weekend.

Now, post- Wisconsin and Hawaii, the 9th and 10th wins in a row for Obama, it may seem that my above points were wrong, but I don't believe that to be the case. Instead, it puts the strategy of the Clinton campaign into context. They are very well aware that their ship is sinking rapidly and in order to extricate themselves, they must find some way to fend off the final wave that will drown them. Putting Obama on the defensive is certainly the right move. Making him defend weaknesses or moments of intellectual laziness is the right move. Maybe it will make just enough people stop and question their vote for him. (Perhaps some truth of this is shown by the Wisconsin numbers where MSNBC's Chuck Todd has reported that Hillary eeked out a small margin of victory in voters who made up their minds on election day.)

The only thing that I will say was wrong about my analysis is that today, I would not use the word "brilliant" to describe the strategy. Instead I choose the adjective "good" or "right". This reflects my belief that the moves by the Clinton campaign were in the right direction, however, the charges have obviously not stuck to Obama and the term "brilliant" ought to be reserved for the move or charge that pierces the teflon nature of the Obama campaign.

JFK-OBAMA???

I was speaking to a colleague of mine today about the JFK-Obama comparisons and I mentioned that it made me queasy. I am a big fan of both and my father, as one of eleven children in an Irish Catholic family, is a longtime fan and student of the Kennedy's. He educated me at a young age about the Kennedys and I love reading and learning about them to this day (though I am quite partial to Bobby over JFK). Anyway--here is our brief conversation (NOT corrected for grammar):


ED: very interesting...was talking to a good family friend the other day who is now a republican, but will vote for obama. when i asked him why, his response was simple: "our generation had JFK, your generation deserves obama"

BURNSY: see...all of that...makes me a little queasy...but im happy if that gets people out to vote for obama

ED: yea, i agree, but why does it make you queasy?

BURNSY: because expectations are certain to set up failure... it did with JFK himself...the whole romantic notion of camelot came well after JFK's death...what you got with JFK was young, inexperienced leadership that failed and succeeded...there was nothing magic, much like there is nothing magic about obama- they both had/have a tendency to lead people to get caught up in lofty, almost poetic rhetoric but such rhetoric isn't going to win you a floor fight in the house and its not going to convince palestinians and israelis to come together or shias and sunnis in iraq- that takes balls (or female equivalent) and hard work...SO...in short (or long rather) the JFK thing makes me queasy because its setting up false expectations

ED: i understand that. but sometimes, to bring a country together, you need them to have that hope or some goal that they see as something that will benefit the country. And sometimes failure or struggles can unite as well. He does give people hope more than any candidate has in our lifetime basically, so i see that as a strong positive

BURNSY: thats a fair, and well-taken point...and it is good to see a movement of young people (especially, though not exclusively) moved by the hope they see in obama...i just worry that when he is successful and is sworn in as the 44th president, too many will become disaffected by the realities of the difficulty and banality of the presidency and the pursuit of a legislative agenda

ED: and this has been one of the knocks on obama since day 1...and i can understand the concern of many with the lack of experience, as we saw with jfk. but, to sum it all up, it sure beats the hell out of hillary clinton

BURNSY: yes...it does...AND...in my mind, the best rationale for voting for obama is that he will help the democratic ticket all the way across the board- i think democrats (with him on the ticket) will be able to pick up seats in both houses of congress and make it easier to pursue the agenda

ED: i completely agree

P.I.M.P!

David Shuster of MSNBC was just suspended for saying yesterday that the Hillary Clinton campaign had "pimped out" her daughter Chelsea on the campaign trail, in particular in her personal phone calls to "superdelegates". The suspension came amid outrage from the Clinton campaign, which included threatening to pull out of MSNBC's February 26th debate in Ohio.

UPDATE: IF FURTHER PROOF BE NEEDED THAT SHE ACTUALLY IS BEING PIMPED OUT-- HERE IT IS! (tongue-in-cheek)

I am outraged by this firing. It would be one thing if Shuster in anyway insinuated that he was using "pimped out" in its technical meaning but he did not. He in no way insinuated that Chelsea was doing anything more than calling superdelegates on her mother's behalf. He saw this as usury and chose the term "pimped out" for it. It IS usury. I happen to see no problem with it in this case but Shuster did and he said so. The (very un-) righteous anger with which the Clinton campaign has responded is SO Clinton and it is entirely ridiculous. They are threatening to pull OUT OF A DEBATE because of this??? Wasn't it Hillary, who was arguing just the other day that the candidates should be debating every week? Now, that someone has publicly disagreed with their strategy by calling out the manner in which they were using their 27 YEAR OLD daughter (yes TWENTY SEVEN, not seven or even twenty!!!!!!) they are thinking of pulling out???

How childish! How Clintonian! How is everybody not SICK of this?

Return on investment

Because my roommate demanded a post on the exit of Mitt Romney from the Presidential race--here it is:

I am ecstatic that Mitt Romney is out of the race. I don't believe that it has been any secret on this blog that I do not have a lot of respect for the campaign Romney waged. He pandered cynically and unapologetically attacked his honorable opponents with swift-boat like tactics. He campaigned on the CEO strategy, but as Barack Obama has joked--he did not receive great return on his investment.

HOWEVER, I happen to think that Mitt Romney may very well have learned valuable lessons in this campaign. If rumors are true, then perhaps he will run again. The man is not without talent, but he is like a young quarterback with a strong arm but with no seasoning. If he is self-reflective enough then perhaps this campaign gave him the seasoning he needed. This will make him stronger for the future. If he spends the next few years out and about around the country, keeping his name in the news, finding a transformative project where he can show his ability to turn organization's around, then he may have a shot at his party's nomination in 2012.

For now, good riddance to my fellow native Michigander.

My brief note on the "Oprah Factor"

Following the two well-thought out discussions on the phenomenon that is Oprah (please see below), here is my partisan response.

I have never seen a full Oprah episode, I honestly could not care much less about Oprah other than to say that in this case, my interests (Obama) align with Oprah's. I agree that if she were truly concerned, she could do much more to register voters or at least educate them. However, I do have to add that seeing her standing on-stage supporting Obama along with Michelle, Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver gives me a great big smile. It increases my belief in the idea that voters are not (or at least should not be) inspired to vote monolithically. (The same can also be said for when I see Congressman Charlie Rangel speaking out in support of Hillary.)

Furthermore, I think Kermit over-generalizes her point. Sure, SOME people don't know why they are voting for Obama or why Oprah supports him but there is no data to suggest this. There is nothing that supports any claim that an overwhelming majority of people she causes to go to the polls will either a) vote for him or b) not know why they are voting for him. Such a point is mere supposition (even if it is ultimately correct).

My question is how is this any different than any other interest group, or union, or parents, or spouses saying (through various mediums) you better get out to the polls and vote and this is who you ought to vote for? This country is FILLED with unwitting voters. . . and does that ultimately bother me? Sure, but for now, that is the way that it is, so if Oprah can get those people to polls and they vote for my guy. . . then yeah, I'm okay with that- its life. And besides, its not like there aren't plenty of uninformed Clinton voters as well.

A follow-up to the previous Guest Post

From Kermit (diann):

I disagree that O “dumbs it down” for her "people." Rather, she says what she's doingwithout really explaining the why of it and fully expects her Cult-y following to follow. While I can agree that it is always a good thing when more people get out and vote, in this instance, they still aren't doing it for any rational reason, except that O told them too. I have a very hard time accepting that anything O does is genuine or with the best of intentions. I’m sorry, but she's too rich and too greedy, she pulls down at least $260 million a year and at last count, had a net worth of $1.4 Billion (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/O0ZT.html). Yes, she claims to do a lot in the name of charity, but does it really seem that charitable in the context of tax write-offs?In addition to her show, and her magazine (she’s on EVERY cover, without shame), she’s also starting her own television station, called OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network, I believe). I have a very difficult time believing that she truly cares about anyone but herself. She is a great role model in terms of making something of oneself, she’s hardworking and definitely responsible for where she is today. However, she is smart enough to know that her “following” will fall for the "do-gooder, I'm a real person like you" act.

And, I think she's racist (and I’m not alone in this, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59592), hence the “snubbing of her gender.” Maybe that's her choice and perhaps justified but it doesn't make me want to support her in anyway.

And as an aside, if O wants her “following” to vote, she should also set up an easy access voter registry, because a large percentage are probably NOT registered, given the statistics. According to the last census, there are about 303 million Americans, of which only 126 million voted in the last election, which was a record high. What are the odds that all 49 million Oprah viewers are registered, especially given that “more than half are older than 50, 44 percent make less than $40,000 a year and about 25 percent have no more than a high school diploma, according to Nielsen Media Research.” http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2007/12/highbrow_weighing_the_oprah_ef.html

If she truly wanted to support Obama and educate her “following,” she would have a show or shows teaching a better understanding of this country’s democratic process; the benefits of being registered, voting and following the issues; and preach the necessity of making your own informed decision. (and by “OWN” I do not mean the Oprah Winfrey Network).

I'm not following the O thing with a fine tooth comb, because it makes me want to gag,but she spends more time talking about "the better candidate" without really saying anything and talking about HER feelings than any thing that could possibly be taken as educational to the public. In my eyes, she's a black female Pat Robertson, preaching her own religion. I can't wait for her to run for president…and basically buy the position.

Must-Read Article

It has been too long of a time since I have written my own blog entry and this will not really be the comeback entry. Instead its to point you in an important direction. First, please be sure to read my friend's post below about the role of women and famous women (Oprah in particular) in the primary election process.

Finally, I feel it is my duty to link you to the most powerful essay I have read in a very long time. It is written by my favorite contemporary writer and makes me feel entirely inadequate and yet also entirely proud. I am not blindly proud "to be an American" in any nationalistic sense, but proud that in this ever-changing world my generation is showing that we too have the ability to stand up for what we believe in. We may be skeptical and distrusting of blind nationalism or claims of righteousness, or of having all of the answers, but we are making a difference, we are dealing with the old world challenges of international warfare and taking on the new challenges of international building and it gives me great pride and it gives me great hope for, and in, our future.

SPECIAL GUEST POST

I am pleased to post a column today from a friend and colleague (both as a blogger and as a co-worker). She is also a frequent contributor in adding constructive comments on this site. She can be found regularly here. Enjoy!

I have much to say about Oprah Winfrey. In fact I really don't like Oprah and how she sometimes acts so high and mighty and how she tries to save the world. That being said, I think she really is a good example of someone with a massive amount of means who truly does give to others. And I LOVE that she is using her influence to stump for Obama.

I love that Oprah is using her power, influence, and understanding of the issues to encourage her viewers to vote. It's the undereducated middle America that is so easily persuaded by what they see on tv, rather than the true issues and their actual implications on life. For example, it absolutely kills me that many people believe by allowing civil same sex marriage that all of the sudden gays will be parading into churches and demanding to have a religious marriage. Hello, that is up to each religion and our government will not force that on you. Nor does supporting stem cell research mean that babies are being cloned and killed for stem cells. So I appreciate that Oprah can "dumb down" the electoral process and make Obama an attractive candidate to her fans.

The fact that "Oprah Winfrey has been dubbed a 'traitor' by some of her female fans for supporting Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton" is what is truly wrong with the voting public. I believe in gender equality. I believe a woman can be President. But I, like Oprah just happen to believe that Barack Obama is a better candidate for President than Hillary Clinton. What about that makes me a "traitor?" And a traitor to what?! My gender? I absolutely abhor the idea that I should vote for someone because we share the fact that we both have XX chromosomes.

Call me cynical, call me a downer, but I have little faith in the electoral process. Not because of the Electoral College or because automated voting machines malfunction or because geriatric voters can't punch a ballot thoroughly but because so many of the American public are swayed by flashing lights and exposes on the price of a candidate's haircut. I fear that our candidate who might TRULY bring about change, with a youthful face and fresh ideas will not survive the primaries because the ignorant vote based on what is or isn't between their legs. And for that reason, I applaud Oprah for attempting to get a great political message through to the masses, in a language they can understand.