|
IMHO, there is not that much difference between the three 'leaders' regarding platform, especially considering that said platforms will bounce up against the reality of Washington.
We are 'hiring' for a leadership position, an executive, not a technocrat. IMHO the two characteristics we should be looking for, once platform is satisfied, are 1) ability to make reasoned decisions based on the advice of hired technocrats; and 2) the ability to inspire/lead.
I also marvel at the hand-wringing over Obama's 'style over substance'. I seem to remember two recent elections where, afterwards, 'we' where crying that if our candidate could have been more 'personable' and less 'wonky' we could have won. How many times have we heard about finding our 'Reagan', our new 'JFK', our new 'FDR', how could we get some of that 'It's morning again in American' platitude to use in campaigns.
The Chimp failed not due to a lack of experience and political skills. The Chimp failed because of a lack of intelligence, judgment and a badly flawed and morally bankrupt platform.
I also get a kick when it is implied that Obama should have waited. A presidential race is not like the final four where there is a fresh opportunity every year.
His next opportunity would have been, most likely, in eight years, and by then there well could be another 'Obama' competing, with him thrown into the 'Hillary' role as the 'insider'. He has adequately mastered political campaigning based on performance to date. If he wins, experience can be hired.
|