The former President and hopeful "First Husband" has become quite pointed about Barack Obama's lack of experience and the apparent experience of his wife. Now Hillary has strong abilities, but her claims to experience stretch things just a bit. She has been in the Senate 4 years longer than Barack. That's not a huge number. While it is true that she knows her way around the White House, I still can't figure out how being First Lady is qualifies her to be President. If being First Lady is sufficient experience, then why not elect Laura or Barbara or even Nancy? So, we're really left discussing their time in the Senate and his other political experience in Illinois.
The continued statements that Barack is inexperienced leads to the further insinuation that his talk about hope is a sign of naivete. But is it?
Mark Schmitt in an
American Prospect article talks about three theories of change as exemplified by the three leading Democratic candidates. One candidate demands change, the second hopes for it, and the third pledges to work for it. The first candidate is John Edwards and the third is Hillary. The second theory is seen as naive, but is it?
Schmitt sees Obama's method being quite useful in the likelihood that the Senate doesn't have 60 Democratic Senators. Obama's ideas of bipartisanship and willingness to see the value of some aspects of the Conservative side could have value in enticing moderate Republicans to join him in his ventures. Hillary, on the other hand, will need 60 committed Democrats to get anything done.
Schmitt writes:
The reason the conservative power structure has been so dangerous, and is especially dangerous in opposition, is that it can operate almost entirely on bad faith. It thrives on protest, complaint, fear: higher taxes, you won't be able to choose your doctor, liberals coddle terrorists, etc. One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that's not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists -- it's a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict. It's how you deal with people with intractable demands -- put ‘em on a committee. Then define the committee's mission your way.
Perhaps I'm making assumptions about the degree to which Obama is conscious that his pitch is a tactic of change. But his speeches show all the passion of Edwards or Clinton, his history is as a community organizer and aggressive reformer (I first heard his name 10 years ago because he was on the board of the Joyce Foundation in Chicago, which was the leading supporter of real campaign finance reform at the time), and he has shown extraordinary political skill in drawing Senator Clinton into a clumsy overreaction. If we understand Obama's approach as a means, and not the limit of what he understands about American politics, it has great promise as a theory of change, probably greater promise than either "work for it" or "demand it," although we'll need a large dose of hard work and an engaged social movement as well.
The more I hear Obama the more convinced I am that he knows what he's doing. Yes, he's young and "inexperienced," but what about another candidate from Illinois? He had a term or so of service in Congress and he is considered one of our greatest Presidents.
I think Obama understands the nature of politics and will rise to the occasion and could be just the person who can draw together people and persuade them to do the things they need to do for the betterment of the country and the world. Now, I may be naive, but I do think that he is best equipped to help our nation change course. The other candidates seem to me to be proponents of the status quo.
Comments