We, humans, have experience with diplomacy. We know what works and what does not. It is all about execution......It is conceivable that Barack can do better, but there is no evidence. There is no experience.
Mary, if I could borrow something you said in a later post which was Extremism does not work I would apply that notion to your view as stated above and find that it’s a pretty extreme position. Barack may not have the kind of experience you are looking for in a candidate, but to say he has no experience is to stretch the truth. It is a form of nihilism. His experience manifests in his being like it does for all of us, he is pretty up front about it, it’s foundational to his campaign. Experience means different things to different people.
There is only hope.
Another extreme position, this time in the form of reification. Coming as they do from opposite ends of the same spectrum, this is almost unavoidable, given the first one. Your brief statements complement each other nicely, but neither comport particularly strongly to reality. This is the view from the center, <g>, imho.
No doubt that Clinton has been closer to the action than Obama has, I acknowledge that his lack of experience is a political weakness, but am not convinced that it's necessarily an overwhelming one. You’re assuming that Hilary’s experience and the proximity of her husband translate into competence, that’s what they want you to believe, but I think it’s a dubious connection. Obama has had no experience of running a national campaign but this hasn’t prevented him from putting together a very well-oiled political machine. Clinton’s campaign on the other hand, for all their experience, has faltered and stumbled along in a pretty unimpressive way. So on that measure at least I think Obama comes out ahead. That’s not to say that his lack of experience doesn’t bother me, it does, that and his relationship with the Military, altho’ I’m not sure that Hilary’s would be any better. Hard to imagine that that would be the case, in fact the Clinton experience in this might be a negative factor for her. I don’t think he’s the messiah, just someone playing a higher stake game. Could turn out very problematic, but not necessarily so.
It might be worth noting that hope makes the world go round, that there is no human endeavor undertaken without it as a prior basis, this is just who we are. No doubt that an Obama win would be 'the triumph of hope over experience' which goes to show what a powerful motivating factor it can be. only hope on the other hand, makes it sound that the hope surrounding Obama is in the nature of blind faith and while there is no doubt some of this is going on, my sense is that the faith people have in Obama is grounded in their perception of him as a capable leader who demonstrates these abilities in the way he thinks, talks and acts. There is substance there beyond only hope . That there is a lot more hope surrounding Obama than Clinton I think speaks to peoples aspirations at this point in time and reveals Hilary’s weakness as a Leader.
<<<During the last televised debate in Cleveland, Ohio, he won a big round of applause when he said, ‘A fundamental difference between us is how change comes about,’ meaning that for her it comes about by legislation from the top down, for him by inspiring and organising a shift in popular consciousness from the bottom up.>>>
Isn't that what George W. Bush was telling us in Iraq. We will be seen as liberators. The public will welcome us. No planning is needed.
Fairy tales can come true and it can happen to you or us, but I think you better come prepared with a plan and with proven methodology.
I have to say that’s quite a leap. All politicians hope for popular support so of course there is common ground in that. Bush had a plan for Iraq, he hoped for a popular groundswell while doing nothing to encourage one meaning that his hope was rooted in blind faith. Obama, on the other hand, has made it happen, big difference. |
