Thursday, February 21, 2008

The Hopemeister

Read this excellent editorial on Obama by David Brooks of The New York Times.

8 comments:

Scott said...

I would also read this article in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

By the way, Brooks wrote an opinion piece about Obama, not an editorial. There is a difference.

Fletcher said...

That's the thing about Obama, he promises to "fix EVERYTHING" but has no detailed plan on exactly how he plans to do all of these wonderful things. He overcommits.

I don't think any US President has ever come through on all of their campaign commitments, but I've never seen someone commit to "fixing every problem in the world" like Obama is doing. If he does win, it will be because he convinced people to like him and because he promises to "end the war" (HOW EXACTLY??), not because he is the most qualified candidate: far from it.

I like Huckabee if I had to choose one, but he probably won't get the votes needed so I worry that I would "waste" my vote.

So do I vote for someone who has a better shot or vote with my convictions and really my preferred candidate?

I really wish the Presidency had more demanding requirements... such as a Groothuisian intellect and education, and a wealth of traveling experience, including having lived in at least one third world country for a minimum of two years.

Sirfab said...

Hi Fletcher.

When you say that you've never seen anyone commit to "fixing every problem in the world" like Obama is doing, it looks like you are quoting Sen. Obama, although I am pretty sure you are not. If I am wrong, would you mind providing the quote?

As for your wish that the presidency had more demanding requirements, "such as a Groothuisian intellect and a wealth of traveling experience, including having lived in at least one third world country for a minimum of two years": if only your wish had been granted seven some years ago...

In any case, Sen. Obama lived four years in Indonesia, from 6 to 10 years of age. He has a degree in political science from Columbia University and a doctoral degree from Harvard Law School, which he achieved magna cum laude, and he became Harvard's Law Review's first black president in 104 years. He was also a lecturer of Constitutional Law at Chicago Law School from 1993 until he was elected to the Senate. Perhaps that qualifies Sen. Obama as having Groothuisian intellect.

One might also make the case that being a community organizer in Chicago's South Side is comparable to living in a third world country (abject poverty exists in the U.S., too.)

I am sure that you can find no end of reasons to dislike Sen. Obama, but perhaps you can take heart in the knowledge that his intellectual and academic qualifications and his exposure to diverse cultures and socioeconomic conditions meet your requirements for candidates to the presidency.

Fletcher said...

Fab:

Admittedly I did not know these things about Obama, and admittedly that is because I haven't studied him personally very much. I am generally conservative (not hard core mind you!) but this indeed does shed some new light on Obama.

Now I need to learn more about his policy positions. You know us Christians, we're concerned about issues such as same sex marriage, abortion, etc.

Seriously though, can you tell me (I see from your blog you are way into politics) if he has an actual detailed plan to "end the war" in such a way that it would not be detrimental to the Iraqi people and global security in regards to terrorism? I fear that if we just "pull out" Iraq would become a breeding ground for Islamic extremists. Shed some more light!

Sadly, my requirements will never be a reality, not in the future, nor 7 years ago.

Fletcher said...

Forgot to check "email responses" box so I had to write a new post just for that. Sorry!

Sirfab said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sirfab said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sirfab said...

Fletcher, your fear that "Iraq would become a breeding ground for Islamic extremists" has already come true. It did after President Bush and his administration decided to go into Iraq. Perhaps it was a very cunning trap that the administration sprang so that terrorists would convene to a foreign foreign battleground, rather than on U.S. soil, but I personally found "the fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" argument just a last-ditch effort to save face once it became apparent that we had created a dangerous and volatile situation instead of being greeted with flowers.

As for a plan on Iraq withdrawal, there is a pdf of what Sen. Obama proposes with regard to Iraq. As for greater details, I will choose a way out which is dear to President Bush: releasing greater details about Sen. Obama's plans would only embolden our enemies, and if you question that judgment you are certainly unpatriotic. ;-)

In any case, visit Sen. Obama's website if you are serious about learning more about him.

As a side note, I would be curious to know how many debates people have watched so far, both Republican and Democratic. I have watched most of them, and have followed all the campaigns fairly closely, so my opinions on the subject are generally well-informed rather than based on hearsay or second-hand accounts. But it would be interesting to find out how many of the people who visit The Constructive Curmudgeon have watched any debates and, if so, how many.

P.S. Sorry for the multiple deletions: I had a few problems with links.