The Economist's new issues asks critical questions about the Barack Obama campaign and a Barack Obama presidency.
Here is my response to the article entitled "But Could He Deliver?"
First of all... as a grammar freak, I can't believe how many obvious grammar errors there are in this article
- For example, "Begin with the horse race. Mrs. Clinton is in a bad way- and deservedly so". What that doesn't even make any sense!
The article argues that Hillary "trumps Mr. Obama on the mastery of detail".
Mastery of detail? Maybe so in the debates- Hillary's long-winded talks bore everyone to sleep, a nice bed time story for those late night debates. But as for in general, Obama has the longest policy plans that I have seen of any candidate (the shortest being Rudy Giuliani). When talking to voters and the phone and explaining his policy plans, I often feel bogged down by all of the material. It's great for me no doubt- the new policy analysts on the scene, but for the regular voter? While yes, voters do want to hear about policies, most voters don't care for the depth that Hillary provides in her speeches (which leads to the boredom). Barack's way of going about policy- exciting the electorate while detailing main policy points, leaving the rest to be explained in much detail on the website is perfect for the average American voter.
The article further argues, "If one lesson from the wasted Bush years is that needless division is bad, another is that incompetence is perhaps even worse. A man who has never run any public body of any note is a risk, even if his campaign has been a model of discipline."
Yes, the Bush years have taught us that incompetence is bad. But Obama and incompetent are two words that do not go together. For a man who went to Columbia, Harvard Law, was a community organizer, a Civil Rights attorney, a professor of Constitutional Law, a state Senator, and a United States Senator, incompetence is not in Obama's dictionary.
Also, Hillary has never run any public body- unless you consider the office of the First Lady a public office. If you do consider her position as First Lady as a steppingstone to being a President, then let me just tell you that as a female (because obviously, gender is being brought into this question), I strongly object to electing a female president who has ridden into the office on her husband's coattails. Do it yourself! Make your own future!
Finally, to not give Barack credit for his nearly flawless campaign and amazing organization, while hinting that Hillary is more prepared because she was the First Lady is extremely contradictory. Are we looking at the same campaigns here? Hillary's- the campaign that she lended $5million, fired her two major staff, oh and failed to prepared for the primaries after February 5th? Hmm... I guess being First Lady doesn't always prepare you for running for President.
My last opposition... "But there is a sense in which he has hitherto had to jump over a lower bar than his main rivals have."
A lower bar? Hmm ok. I personally think that the fact that his name was literally unknown nationwide when he declared his candidacy last year and his biggest rival was (and still is) the former First Lady under an extremely popular Democratic President presents a somewhat high bar to jump over.
Ok so those are my major problems with this article. More to come
