History News Network

Departments

Obama Fever

Mr. Shenkman is the editor of HNN and the author of Presidential Ambition.

(Click here and here for more recent POTUS blogs on this subject.)

I was hoping the Democrats' Obama fever would break quickly. If it's going to happen there's no sign of it yet. It's Obama Obama Obama. Everywhere Obama.

I have nothing against Obama. In fact, I like him. What's not to like? Anybody who can run the Harvard Law Review and sound as articulate and intelligent as the charismatic Obama should be considered a comer.

But presidential material? Come on, Democrats. Let's get serious. Put the US government in the hands of someone who's been a senator for all of two years?

Frank Rich in today's Times says that Obama's short resume should be no more of a bar to running than Bush's was. Huh? Now we are going to use Bush as the gold standard against which to compare future presidents?

The reverse is what's needed. Anybody like Bush we should run away from.

Rich argues that more years in the Senate will hardly improve Obama. But surely a few more years would be helpful, wouldn't it? He might at least come to understand how Washington works.

We wouldn't pick a heart surgeon fresh out of school to operate on say, Bill Gates. Too much would be at stake. But we're ready to turn over the most powerful government in the history of the planet to a person with 2 years experience in the Senate and a few terms as a state senator thrown in for good measure?

This is classic American boneheadedness.

It's a sign of our immaturity as a democracy that serious people would even consider this.

A review of recent history would suggest we haven't done well with presidents with thin resumes. Carter was a disaster and Bush even worse. So we should again turn to somebody who hasn't been tested?

What I want in a president is someone who, say, has had the responsibility of running a major organization with thousands of people whose very lives depended on his/her decisions. Surely in a country of 300 million the Democrats can find one or two who meet this minimal criteria and who share their vision for the future.

Some will argue that a good resume is no guarantee of wisdom or leadership ability. That's true, of course. Bush I was a good president but hardly an inspirational leader despite his lengthy resume. But he was a helluva lot better president than his son. His experience no doubt was a factor in his making wiser choices than his son. (No one is likely asking him anymore why he didn't take out Saddam in 1991.)

But of course in the age of television all we can think of is how a person comes across on the tube. It's all personality now.

In a world where North Koreans have the bomb and Iran's leader wants to end Israel's existence this would seem a time for seriousness.

Well, America, isn't it?

Here's a test. Ask yourselves WWFFD: What Would the Founding Fathers Do? Would they turn the reins of power over to Obama? When they were given the chance they found a Washington. Don't we have any more Washingtons? Or was a country of 4 million able to produce a higher leadership class than a country of 300 million?

Michael Kazin: Why Obama's a star

Posted on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 1:12 PM | Comments (40) | Return

Home Newsletter Submissions Advertising Donations Archives Internships About Us FAQs Contact Us All Articles