No Obamarama, Please

This is so 2005

The ability to give a great speech is the most visible and, I argue, one of the most important responsibilities of the individual who leads any nation, and particularly, the most powerful nation on earth.
It also acts as a window into the soul of the man or woman behind the speech, communicating far more than the transient issues and positions of the day.

Barack Obama’s speech at the Democratic Convention proved that he has what it takes to be a phenomenal President.

I’m sorry, but projecting Obama as the Great Hope is ridiculous. Not only is it premature, but they are wishcasting traits onto Obama that he simply doesn’t have, and that’s ignoring the astoundingly poor record of Senators running for President.

Was his speech at the Dem convention a good one? Sure it was. But now he’s got two years of Senate experience and what has he done? Nothing of note, and certainly nothing spectacular, and with many a blunder that ought to be sufficient to remove the blinkers from people like Richard Greene.

For all these reasons and more, Obama is not what those star struck teenybopper wannabe admirers present him as being. He’s just another Senator who can make some good speeches, but no demonstrated ability to get anything done, let alone anything good done.

The rest of Greene’s argument is equally risible. Ignoring the distinction between Obama’s position as a Senator and Clinton’s as a Governor is something I would expect from a high school student, not someone selected to post on HuffPo. Governors have two huge advantages over Senators – one, no voting history; and two, it’s an Executive, not Legislative position. There have been a total of seven Senators who became president, the last being Nixon (finishing a weird run of three in a row, from JFK to LBJ to Nixon). There have been 17 governors who became president, including the last two, and four of the last five (Bush41 being the exception). With the McCain financing laws, there’s a huge loophole to fund senators running for president that governors don’t have, so the money’s better for senators but the job description fits governors more.

This article by Greene is strange. It seems like a regurgitation of something stuck in the HuffPo spam filter from 2 years ago. Obama’s star has dulled considerably since his speech at the convention, most of all from that horrendous religiosity finger wagging period in late June. Reading Greene’s article feels as out of touch with current events and the pulse on the actual street as TNR’s infamous (and embarassing) cover issue supporting rape gurney Lieberman as the Democratic candidate in the 2004 elections.

TNR hearts Lieberman

Now, I’m not against an Obama run (though the internalizing of the “lack” of religion in the Democrat party makes it a near thing), but his supporters really need to get those stars out of their eyes and start playing in reality. If we’re going to elect a black man as President (and you know that’s what he’ll be labeled), it’s going to take a lot more than one good speech and delusions of rose petals and candy. Hell, McCain got ratfucked by Rove for having an adopted nonwhite daughter, and if Obama can’t even play McCain-level mushy hardball, he’s got no chance in a general election.

Show some leadership, Barak. Do something good and you’ll have my interest. Until then, stay off my lawn you hippies!