A liberal view of the Clinton-Obama faceoff

I was speaking with a liberal this weekend who opined that McCain will win, something he found inconceivable in a match between Obama and McCain.

“Why,” I asked?

“Because McCain’s never done anything,” he replied. Rather than defend McCain’s record, I asked a different question:

“What’s Obama done?”

A millisecond went by, and then I got this answer:

“Obama is so much smarter than McCain.”

Yup, that’s what Obama’s done: He’s been smarter. If that’s your criterion, of course, I’ve got a very bright 9 year old who would love to have the run of the White House, not to mention control over the nation’s nuclear weapons.

By the way, this same liberal is a huge fan of JFK, so I began looking at JFK, McCain and Obama. Working off the top of my head, I came up with the following:

Kennedy McCain Obama
Military Service Yes Yes No
House of Reps 6 yrs 4 yrs 0 yrs
Senate 8 yrs 22 yrs 3 yrs
Foreign policy hawk Yes Yes No
Large gov. foe So-So So-So No
Book author Yes Yes Yes

Feel free to add to this. I’ve never been much of a Kennedy fan, since I came of age when all the unsavory allegations about him (the womanizing, the mafia connections, etc.) hit the news, and that permanently colored my emotional reaction to the man. I know all of you will have more useful comparison facts than I do.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jj says

    Well, let’s see…

    Had A Rich Daddy Who Stole An Election For Him – that would be a “no” for McCain and Obama; “yes” for Kennedy; Took A Run At My Mother In Palm Beach In 1958 – that would be a “no” for McCain and Obama, “yes” for Kennedy.

    You’re right, this could get interesting quick!

  2. Deana says

    What is it with liberals who are convinced that they are so much smarter than anyone else? Why do they think this?

    It’s just amazing to me how much they think of themselves.

    Deana

  3. David Foster says

    *None* of the candidates has any experience in running large/complicated organizations. Which I think is scary. Because we’re electing a chief executive, not just a chief policy wonk or chief speechmaker.

  4. Zhombre says

    That’s the problem with candidates from the Senate, isn’t it, David? Which is why this year presents an anomalous situation, with three Senators in contention. My own preference was for Romney or Giuliani who both actually had executive experience.

  5. David Foster says

    Deana…”What is it with liberals who are convinced that they are so much smarter than anyone else?”…to slychologize a bit, I suspect that many “progressives” are people who hold an advanced degree in some soft subject and now are employed at a level far below that which they believe to be their due. The belief in their own superior intelligence is a way in protecting their self-image: many of these are very status-conscious people.

    See also my post The Smart-Talk Trap.

  6. Ymarsakar says

    My own preference was for Romney or Giuliani who both actually had executive experience.

    Unfortunately those two wanted to take a hit for party united and bowed out after only a few primaries.

    Talk about retarded primaries where the candidate is “eliminated” even before all the votes are in. Only “some” Republicans, it seemed, got to vote on who the Republican candidate would be.

  7. Oldflyer says

    Given the enormous growth of government with the attendant gigantic and entrenched bureacracy, I believe that it is essential that the President have experience and proven success in exerting his will on large organizations. For conservatives, it is even more meaningful if the experience has been with hostile organizations.

    I would have expected GWB to be more adept at this (Harvard MBA/Governor) but his shortfalls in this regard have been serious and are a cautionary tale.

    For future reference it may be wothwhile to look primarily at Governors who have succeeded in states where he has belonged to the minority party. There are examples; Mitt Romney being a current one. A natural source of Cabinet Officers, if not political candidates, would be CEOs who have turned around failing corporations in the face of entrenched opposition.

  8. Deana says

    David –

    I love how that executive asked the guy to just say what he wanted to do – and the guy couldn’t do it!

    I find that with a lot of lefties – they criticize everything but when asked how they would handle particular problems, actual real-life issues, they stumble. It’s always “there should be a discussion” or “an attempt should be made to . . .,” as if those efforts have never happened.

    And because their solutions always center around studies and discussion and not action and commitment, their theories never have to be tested by reality. It’s so convenient – they can never be proven wrong! No wonder they think they are so smart.

    Deana

  9. Danny Lemieux says

    I can certainly appreciate how Book, with help from DQ, has been transformed Bookworm Room into a magnet for very interesting and thought-provoking people, not to mention its unfortunately rare quality of civil discourse.

Leave a Reply