Tuesday, September 02, 2008

UPDATED: Obama's biggest accomplishment (so far)

is to run a successful presidential campaign. Ann Althouse responding to Jeralyn Merritt:

Jeralyn Merritt: As I'm typing this, Obama is being interviewed by Anderson Cooper about Gustav. Anderson's last question was how he would answer those who say that Gov. Palin, as mayor of a small town and Gov. of Alaska, has more experience than he does. He didn't miss a beat. He smiled and said Palin's town of Wasilia, Alaska had 50 employees. His campaign has 2500. The town's budget is about $12 million a year. His budget is 3 times that per month. He cited the legislation he's passed on emergency management post-Katrina and that many recommendations he made were adopted and are being put in place as we speak.


Ann Althouse: It's true that Obama's biggest accomplishment is his success (thus far) in running a Presidential campaign. But isn't this a bit absurd? One qualifies to run for President by the very activity of running for President? I'm glad to hear that he smiled when he said that, because I don't think it's an argument you can make with a straight face.


And Kev said:

If I follow Merritt's argument, I deserve that CEO job I applied for last week because I used a really neat font on my resume and made sure the envelope had a stamp on it.

UPDATE: Bob Owens makes an excellent point:

"We now know far more about Sarah Palin in just four days than we've learned about Barack Obama in 17 months. That is just sad. It's a pathetic reflection of the mainstream media's unwillingness to do their jobs for fear of finding stories that would hurt the candidate so many of them openly desire to win. But periodically appearing to read teleprompters isn't vetting, not matter how many months a candidate has done it, and Obama's ability to perform in set-piece debates is both dubious—Hillary once famously took him apart—and irrelevant. Barack Obama really has never been fully vetted. He hasn't even come close."


UPDATE: Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are alike. Both are underqualified for the jobs they seek.

Yes, Barack beat a host of more qualified and more accomplished dems in the primary--BUT the left wingers in the dem primary weren't necessarily looking for a candidate with the most qualifications or experience. They were looking for somebody with the best chance of winning. Barack did not run on his thin resume or measly accomplishments, he ran on the slogan of CHANGE.

He presented himself as the uber CHANGE-agent.

But the democratic primaries are different from the general election. In a dem primary, you run to the Left. In the general, you pivot to the center to attract more independents.

In the general, you can't be too leftwing. and you need to show that you have the necessary experience, judgment and qualifications to attract the moderates.

That's why Obama couldn't pull ahead of McCain in the daily tracking poll, because of people's concerns about Obama's readiness to lead and his lack of experience.

But McCain has undercut his on case vs Obama by selecting Palin.

So what should she do? Like Obama who passed the Dem Primaries with flying colors, she too will have to perform well from now till november to sway the voters to her side.

Obama's biggest accomplishment so far is to run a successful presidential campaign. Her goal is like Obama's, to sell herself to the public as a credible candidate during the remaining days of the campaign, and she needs to overcome the experience handicap like obama.

If she succeeds, they will have a chance of winning. If she fails, EPIC FAIL! Landslide victory for Obama.

At least the Republicans got the order of their ticket right. The top of the ticket is the more experienced and ready candidate. the bottom part of the ticket is the younger person and future star of the party.

Sa democrats, baliktad. The top of the ticket has no experience, and the bottom half is a "dick cheney type" guy picked for experience and to lend gravitas to Obama.

UPDATE: Obama vs. Palin: “Are You Experienced?”

5 comments:

DJB Rizalist said...

Success has many fathers, whilst failure is an orphan. Then again kibitzers are all over both. Yet if we disdain on-the-job training so much, why do place term limits on the Presidency? Considering that no job quite prepares a candidate for that high office, perhaps there should be no limit to two terms?

manuelbuencamino said...

Actually, Althouse's rhetorical question is absurd.

1) If a candidate can't even run his own campaign right how is he going to win?

2) And, if he wins despite blundering through his campaign, shouldn't he then be expected to do the same thing when he assumes office: he is going to blunder through it.

Managing a political campaign is an indicator of one's political management skills. It also demonstrates one's leadership abilities for a job that basically requires the same skills needed to run a country: leadership, the ability to build concensus, running a tight ship etc.

john marzan said...

running a political campaign is different from running a country. just ask bush's brain karl rove.

john marzan said...

the answer obama gave about experience and qualifications vis-a-vis sarah palin isn't a serious one. he thinks he can get away with it though because i myself think sarah palin is underqualified for the job.

just like him.

but i don't think people will take obama seriously if gave that glib answer to mccain in a debate on experience, accomplishments, and qualifications.

manuelbuencamino said...

How a candidate runs a campaign is a good indication of how he will run the country. The last two elections and the last eight years prove it. And closer to home, see how Gloria ran her campaign and how she has run the country.