So it looks like we’re going to have an honest president again. Is that a good thing? Our last honest president was Jimmy Carter. Highly moral and smart, but not very competent. No use being honest if you’re incompetent.
Fortunately for us, Barack Obama happens to be incredibly competent. Having been in politics for only twelve years, and starting from way behind a little more than a year ago, he built a political machine from scratch that took on the mighty Clinton machine, oiled for years, and brought it to a spluttering defeat. Barack raised more money than Hillary, his campaign opened more offices in more states, he got more volunteers, he got more votes, and he fashioned a message that knocked the inevitable candidate for a loop. The Clintons still don’t know what hit them, and probably never will. Hillary got so punch-drunk, she kept thinking she still had a chance long after her campaign was deader than the flattest roadkill. All her experience and wonkish competence got her nowhere. On the evidence of Barack’s campaign, he is the most competent administrator in US politics since LBJ or Roosevelt.
But is competence a character trait? I think it is. If you’re smart, and moral, and practical, and have good judgment, and surround yourself with other smart and principled people, and actually listen to other people – all signs of good character — chances are you’ll be competent. Bush was none of that. Clinton was some of that. Barack is all of that.
People keep saying Barack Obama has no idea what the Republicans have in store for him in the general election. Apparently the fearsome GOP will come at him from all sides and chew him up.
Well, I think it’s exactly the other way around: John McCain has no idea what’s going to hit him. The Barack Obama machine is going to roll over him in a landslide. Barack ate Hillary in a long lunch; he’s going to snack McCain in a quick breakfast.
John McCain will end up the crushed flip-flopper he is: he flip-flopped on tax cuts for the rich, he flip-flopped on the environment, he flip-flopped on torture, and he flip-flopped on the Religious Right. (He once called them “agents of intolerance,” and then happily accepted endorsements from the likes of pastor Hagee, who called the Catholic Church a “great whore,” and then he rejected these endorsements — McCain has a bigger pastor problem than Obama.)
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Wow Adam, this one is so amazingly out of touch with reality it's like you're channelling messages from another universe.
Nice to see you're warming up to Bush, though.
Dave
2 - maria
this is a great article. I hope that more Americans allow themselves the opportunity to read through some of your insight. Well done!
3 - bliffle
Engrossing article with an interesting Point Of View. But a little long.
4 - Georgio
Adam ..It was a long article but I read it all and I agreed with most of it ..First of all I don't think you where fair to Hillary..after all she did get 18 million votes and she won the states that the Dems need to win in the general and O bama won states that we will not win in the general especialy the south..
I am from Chicago and have followed Obamas rise from the beginning..truth is he never would have even become the Democratic candidate to run for the ticket if his opponent who was 17 pts ahead of him didn't have a wife who went on TV and said he is a wife beater,,so Obama won the right to face the republican candidate who also was favored to win the election but can you believe it ..the repulican also had a scandle that did him in so one might say OBama became a Senator by pure luck..I would also say he beat Hillary with pure luck also because if the association he had with the reverend and others was known from the beginning he would not have gotten to first base .
I am a Democrate and will vote for him but I have serious problems with him ..In the beginning I liked him because of his message of hope and a new beginning that politics in Washington would change..But the longer the fight went on the more he sounded just like every other politician..
The black community backed him 94% and if that is not raceism in reverse than I have a bridge I want to sell to you..the GOP will exploit this because they will put doubts in minds of white voters because they are not worried about turning the blacks against them because they know they are not going to get thier votes anyway...
Adam I hope he can be the kind of President that will help this country but I see no chance at all unless Hillary is on the ticket and right now I don't see that happening.
5 - Baronius
Georgio, that's interesting because I can't see Obama winning with Clinton on the ticket. Second-guessing from Hillary, third-guessing from Bill, parallel organizations... it would be the worst thing for party unity. A party unifies under one leader, with no looking back.
Dave, I found the article interesting because it probably accurately reflects the views of people I disagree with. It's interesting to see facts (and opinions) used as building blocks to create something I'd never imagine. It doesn't make sense to me that someone could look at Obama and see coolness and character, but the truth is that some people do.
6 - Georgio
Baronius..the reason I say Hillary has to be on the ticket is because she won states that the Dems need to win ..Obama won states that the GOP will win in the general..any other VP that he picks could get him one or two states but this election will come down to Fl ,OH ,PA, Mich..Obama can't win these states without Hillary.
7 - Baronius
Georgio - I don't buy into this thinking that FL, OH, PA, and MI are wearing chastity belts that only Clinton can unlock. Clinton won two of those states because Obama didn't campaign in them. In Ohio, the GOP has made such fools of themselves that I can't imagine them voting for a Republican for a decade. That leaves Pennsylvania, the state of bitter gun-toting Bible-thumpers. They've got more problems with Obama than a running mate could solve.