Comments on: A Résumé is Not Enough

By: M1EK

M1EK — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:10:45 +0000

Smart but inexperienced is precisely one million times better than dumb but inexperienced. Obama is clearly smart enough to make the right call (ref: Iraq) even when experienced guys disagreed about what that call is.

By: floyd

floyd — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:48:39 +0000

It has been my experience that a hunger for "CHANGE"is hardly a motivator for politicians, It's the folding money they're after!!

By: Wayne

Wayne — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:01:31 +0000

James
Pretty good post. I would agree that Huckabee rise had to do with his ability to answer questions in an elegant way, debate performance and coming off as a decent guy. Those that think it just Baptist supporting him is underestimated him.I think the attacks on some of his past policies have tempered his rise and how he handles them will determine if he gets the nomination.

The problem with McCain’s experience as a P.O.W. is that he comes off as if he has been warp by it. Like a batter wife, many have sympathy for him but wonder if it may screw up his judgments. Who wants a president who will make purely emotional decisions instead of rational ones?

I agree with Dave that many no longer trust the experts because of their track record. The last election was about change and I think the next one will be as well. How many innovated ways of doing something come from the establish community? If you elect someone that has a good deal of experience doing it one way, they will almost certainly continue to do it that way. Of course there is an inherent risk in change but I think many are willing to take that chance. The same-o B.S. is no longer popular.

By: legion

legion — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:01:56 +0000

Well, I haven't really analyzed the Dems through this particular lens yet, but the reason for a lack of reliability (dare I say 'inevitability'?) in the GOP's big names is pretty obvious - every big name in the GOP is a big name these days precisely because of their kowtowing to the Bush legacy. Even McCain, whom some poor deluded few still consider a 'maverick', has so thoroughly kissed that Ivy League butt the last few years that his association with the status quo is irreparable. And vanishingly few people like the status quo. It's pretty simple to summarize: Association with Bush == Only way to get the establishment GOP to support you. Association with Bush == Not a ringing endorsement of judgment, character, or basic competence from the majority of actual Americans. Ergo, it's anyone's ball game for the GOP nomination.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:51:40 +0000

There are other explanations for the admiration of a lack of experience than a “youth-obsessed culture”, the poor track record of the experts being one of them. I think it's a pervasive nostalgie de la bou. The American mythology encourages such a view. Andrew Jackson, the architect of our political system, was hailed (and cursed) for his humble origins as was Abraham Lincoln, hallowed as among the greatest of presidents. There's a segment of the Democratic Party which is intractably technocratic in its outlook. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are exemplars of that view. But there's also a segment of the Democratic Party which is determinedly anti-elite. John Edwards is trying to appeal to that group. Similarly, there's a faction of the Republican Party which is technocratic in its view (Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney leap to mind) while there's another faction that's anti-elite, as Mike Huckabee's meteoric rise demonstrates. Boths views are right; both are wrong.

By: Boyd

Boyd — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:05:29 +0000

The Enter key, and the resulting paragraphs, are your friend.

(A reference to a deleted spam post -ed.)