As the 2008 campaign painstakingly bumps and grinds along, both tickets have finally been established and the rift between the supporters of each candidate widens with each passing moment. I would like to explain to the Democratic opposition why we oppose your candidate of choice. This is just one man’s opinion..
From the beginning, Barack Obama was the underdog. An unknown. The reinstallation of the “Clinton Machine, Phase II” was a foregone conclusion. The other jockeys had put up their silks, the paddock was empty and the presumptive nominee had a date with the blanket of 554 roses as well as the requisite flash bulb pops and the glad-handing that goes with the winner’s circle. Then a funny thing happened.. The primary process began. One candidate chose, “Thirty five years of experience” as her call tag. Another chose “Hope” and “Change”. The left eventually decided upon the latter, but it wasn’t in an overwhelmingly convincing manner.
The “movement” that was to become the Obama candidacy had begun. The stragglers, including his eventual Vice Presidential nominee, faded well before the home stretch, some not even making it two or three furlongs, deservedly so. The energy of the Obama “movement” carried on.
With any “movement” comes the “excitement of change.” It’s all about “doing something”. For the Democrats, this political movement is taking on the excitement of a parachute jump from an airplane. It is a rush. It is thrilling. The idea of “change” without experience makes the sensible, who are being hard pressed to take this blind leap of faith, to ask, “who packed my parachute?” The unfortunate thing is that they will be asking this AFTER they jump and AFTER they have pulled the ripcord. Just one or two tangled lines will send one hurtling towards certain disaster. This is not the PTA where inexperienced decisions might affect the school play, the cakewalk or the science fair, the ramifications here could potentially last for generations. Experience in the Commander in Chief is of the utmost importance.
As far as the “Change” mantra goes, if the surrounding cabinet is made up and stocked with, the usual wrinkly old Democratic grimy hands, the ruse of “change” really means “business as usual”. No “buyers remorse” or “take backs” here, you’ve already stepped out of the plane. Does “Change” really mean “Anyone but a Republican”? That may be amusing to and it may appeal to the Democratic base but the “undecided” may need something a little more weighty yet mysterious. Thus the necessity for the resurrection of Bill Clinton’s talking point of “Change”. It is sufficiently nebulous and amorphous. It is conveniently monosyllabic. It is viciously vague.
If the cabinet consists of those as inexperienced as the Democratic candidate for the Presidency, please refer back to the previously mentioned “parachute analogy”..
Those enamoured with and hypnotized by the “movement” were clamoring for “change.” “Change” is different from, nor does it denote, imply or guarantee “direction”. The left needed “something to believe in” so it became necessary to package the candidate. Thus the need for expeditious world tours and front line visits in order to create the “myth of experience.” As long as Germany approved, everyone else should begin marching in lock step, which is kind of a German habit..
The example of Hillary Clinton seems to prove that experience, real or imagined, was a bad thing on the Democratic side of the ledger. That certainly works out well for Barack Obama as he can honestly and proudly claim that he has none. Since his days in Chicago, he has been packaged and preened. Both Emil Jones and John Stroger have quickly cleared the political pathway for him. The man who wants to be the President of the United States hasn’t even managed a single full term in the Senate.
One of the most important things that experience tells us is what a candidate has done BETWEEN election cycles. That is the dark political period when the salacious whisperings of the lecherous lobbyists become roars and where the roars of the constituents that the candidate heard during the campaign become a whisper.. Fighting these lobbyists and working on behalf of the constituents is all part of the experience process. I find it almost impossible for anyone to convince me that it is wise to send an inexperienced lamb into this den of political lions. Nothing good can come of it.
If the promises made during a campaign are not kept while the candidate holds office, this translates into the “experience” that the voters can to refer back to when the politician “seeks your vote” again. Experience is the road map that charts the path the candidate has taken after they’ve been exposed to the political virus in and around Washington. They have either developed immunity through the inoculations of individual principles and morality or they have succumbed to the political pathogen.
The talk of “change and hope” without experience becomes mere symbolism devoid of substance. Change without design or direction is a political minefield. You might make it through, then again, you will probably lose a leg or worse.
Web sites designed and assembled by party operatives cannot replace the glare of the candidate’s inexperience. A “Dear Santa” wish list of what he would like to do does not match up to what an experienced candidate has done. An experienced candidate who tells us of “reaching across the aisle” in a “bipartisan” nature can produce skeins of evidence to support that claim. To merely say that you “hope” to do so without actually having ever done so is to dream of a political world where ideologies, “special interests” and the constituencies of the other elected officials of Congress do not matter or exist. “Experience” will tell you that this is much easier to accomplish in words than in deeds.
“Experience” is the water necessary to properly swallow the directionless horse pill of “change.” Those who have fallen for the Obama imagery have more than a little difficulty understanding our justifiable trepidation.
Is it just possible to say that he is not ready “right now” for the responsibility without any accusations of pigmentational prejudice?
A candidate without relevant experience is therefore asking the voters to “take his word for it.” The Democrats have said that they are more than willing to do so regardless of the consequences. We are saying that we aren’t willing to do so BECAUSE of the consequences..
Let the games begin..