So, we all agree Obama's state Senate 'leadership' was nil?

[Tactical Progressive]

I asked this question in a thread I started a couple of days ago:

"(Obama) spent what, seven or eight years in the Illinois State Senate? What levels of leadership did he rise to there?
...
Or did he leave the Illinois State Senate as just another rank and file Senator after most of a decade?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4579217&mesg_id=4579217

And got basically nothing defending his actual record of leadership.


Obama's lack of experience is already pretty well accepted.
He's not just a little short, but alot.

A "community organizer" running the United States?

And I question even his claims of community service.
I imagine his 'community service' record is as overblown and contrived as the rest of his resume.
I'd need to see a complete rundown of his community service before I'd take Obama's word on anything.
I still remember when he called living abroad as a child for a few years serious foreign policy experience,
And the legal work he purportedly did for blue collar workers, yet he never argued in a courtroom.
And his professorship - he wasn't a professor.

All of these things, like a blown-up resume for college entrance.

The media refuses to question the slightest thing about Obama or his history.
At least as long as he's running against a Clinton.
I question all of it. As should every serious Democrat.


That lack of experience is already pretty well accepted if not reported on well at all.
I was attempting to go beyond just questioning his experience, which is incredibly weak.

I questioned his claim to "leadership".

That's the fallback position he hides behind when the uncomfortable questions about his experience get asked.
In the Illinois State Senate his self-proclaimed leadership appears to be just another self-indulgence.
No less inflated or fabricated than his claims of experience.
The media doesn't question his leadership any more than they have questioned his experience.

Both his supporters and the media appear comfortable avoiding any questions on that
by subscribing to the circular logic that because his followers follow him,
he must be a leader.

So I asked here.

I was looking for a more substantial representation of political leadership.
A real, defineable example beyond 'I'm following him so he's a leader'.
Something more than proof by self-assertion, like the rest of his shell of a record.

I was looking at a simple example, at how he did in the only job that could be considered even remotely similar,
though certainly not sufficiently by any definition, of political leadership - they could at least ask
how far he rose in the 'leadership' of a State Senate body.

It should have been a PlaySkool toy for someone of the self-professed 'leadership' stature of Obama.
He should have been running the Illinois State Senate given his lofty self-assessments.

And yet, apparently, his natural 'leadership' skills didn't even get him off the ground floor
in an eight-year state Senate career.


So can we agree that in addition to an almost barren resume of actual national political experience or executive experience,
that Obama's career path is almost as bereft of any visible proof of political leadership skills (beyond getting elected)?

When you take Obama's self-proclamations out of the picture,
the big-fish couldn't even rise in the leadership ranks
of the little pond of a State Senate.

Can we accept that Obama has no more proof of political 'leadership' than he does of experience?

[lligrd]

1. I Think We Can All Agree That Clinton's Leadership Ability

in the primaries appears to be uh, lacking.

[Tactical Progressive]

2. Hillary doesn't claim we're ''Hungry for her leadership.''

[lligrd]

3. I Lost My Appetite For Hillary When She Bent Over For Bush nt

[Tactical Progressive]

7. She didn't, but neither did you respond to the OP

Whether you like Hillary or not, even for the wrong reasons like you do, has nothing to do with whether Obama has shown any real political leadership in his State Senate career beyond getting elected, which doesn't count.

If the only answer you have to Obama's history of being unable to rise in the leadership ranks of the Illinois State Senate is that you don't like Hillary, then your argument is forfeit.

Same as just about every response in the earlier thread.

[lligrd]

11. I Suppose It Boils Down To Your Definition Of Leadership

Hitler had great leadership abilities. Apparently, Bush does too (although I have no idea why Clinton was so willing to follow the ass).

Hillary had her chance and she blew it. More than once. Fool me once, shame on you... I'd rather try someone who hasn't let me down as often.

[Unbowed]

58. Exactly. n/t

[readmoreoften]

4. No, they're pretty fixated on their love object.

Hillary says she's the candidate of back to the way it used to be: and her record reflects it.
Obama says he's the second coming of Christ: and his record is timid and uninspired.

[lapfog_1]

10. Mind illuminating what record you are talking about?

Her experience led her to vote for the IWR?

and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment?

and back to the way it used to be wasn't all that great. And more to the point, isn't applicable to today's situation, other than a Clinton in the White House will likely energize the repuke base to vote in a repuke Senate, and maybe even a repuke House. Wonderful. 1994 all over again. Only in 2010.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. and with the 1st Clinton's chickens now coming home to roost....

I wouldn't be touting how great they 90's were. NAFTA, Media Consolidation, Welfare Reform, a disastrous attempt at a healthcare plan, scandal after jaw dropping scandal. And the list goes on. Funny, once you remove the blinders, you can see so much more clearly.

[Window]

24. *Sigh*

This "The Way We Were" shit isn't going to work -- it never does. Sure, it was better then than it is now, but look what we have now. I don't want to go in the 'way back machine,' I want to look forward to a better future for my grandchildren and I believe Obama can deliver.



Peace:thumbsup:

[readmoreoften]

38. I mean his whole record. He's never done anything to distinguish himself.

How can he run as a bold leader with a phenomenal vision of hope and change when he has never previously displayed any backbone at all? He's a puffed up nobody. She's a corporate hack. So what? We all know that. Why do you defend your candidate by saying Clinton is worse? Is that all he is? MAYBE better than Clinton? Hardly anything to be excited about, let alone drooling, fainting, and hysterical over.

[lapfog_1]

5. Neither democratic candidate has much experience.

Hillary wasn't even elected to any office until 2000, and never served at any local political level.

So we have a choice of a community activist or a law partner. That's pretty much how you would sum up the "experience" of both candidates. I will not give Hillary the experience of being co-president with Bill for the simple reason that she doesn't now want the baggage of the decisions made in those 8 years, things like DOMA, NAFTA, and the WTO.

She did have "experience" in helping to run two Presidential campaigns... and, looking at how her current campaign is going, the experience doesn't seem to be helping her much.

You can agree with yourself about Obama's qualifications all you want.

I don't. So *WE* don't agree. Comprende?

And if experience in Presidential administrations was so important... then YOU would have to look favorably on the administration of George W. Bush. I mean, just look at all of the EXPERIENCE that GWB brought into his administration, people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. You couldn't throw a spitball in a cabinet meeting without hitting someone who was an ex-governor or ex-cabinet member from a previous administration.

So experience isn't what counts the most. Not to me.

[Tactical Progressive]

9. Inotherwords, Obama has no history of leadership

And I disagree with you on the difference in "experience", but that's for another thread.

Seems you're not comprende'ing even the topic being discussed.

[lapfog_1]

12. I comprehend just fine thank you

I just don't agree with you.

As for leadership, your definition wants to only look at either positional authority or accomplishments. I think Obama has a different form of leadership, one of inspirational. motivating people to accomplish a given goal.

Was MLK a leader? What position did he occupy that made him a leader? Was he elected to some high office? Did he author some piece of legislation? Or do you believe that he wasn't a leader because he didn't do those things?

[Tactical Progressive]

15. You're comparing Obama to Martin Luther King?

That's ridiculous. Obama is the only one egotistical enough to make that claim.

Just because someone reads a speech off a teleprompter doesn't make him Martin Luther King.

[lapfog_1]

16. No. I am merely pointing out

that YOUR criteria for "leadership" would leave MLK out as a leader.

And probably include GWB.

I'm not comparing MLK to anyone. You jumped to that conclusion all by yourself.

[Tactical Progressive]

26. Yeah, you did.

And Martin was a leader for all kinds of reasons, none of which Obama can relate to in any sort of way.

Yet here you are again inferring that because Martin was a leader, then Obama must be too.

Proving you understand nothing about leadership.


Why don't you just stick to trying to answer the question before you draw any more ridiculous parallels.

Why couldn't self-annointed leadership guru Obama manage a lick of institutional leadership in his domain, the Illinois State Senate?

[lligrd]

33. So You Admit, That By Your Definition

Dubya is an excellent leader? Now I see why you don't mind the Clintons bending over for him.

[lapfog_1]

40. No, I didn't.

Your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Nowhere in my reply can you find "Obama is like MLK" or "Obama in the next MLK". That would be a comparison. Which is NOT what I did. I brought up MLK to demonstrate, successfully, how stupid your definition of "leadership" is, since MLK would not have demonstrated any leadership using your criteria.

All I did was point out that there are OTHER forms of leadership than the ones in your narrow definition.

Something you apparently don't like, considering you rather continuous patronizing attitude toward me.

Such as "Proving you understand nothing about leadership."

And you are out to "prove" that Obama is not a leader BECAUSE YOU SAY SO.

Never mind that there are other definitions of leadership than yours.
Never mind that the other remaining candidate has NO demonstrated leadership qualities of her own, so what difference does it make if Obama does or does not?
Never mind that her campaign is currently a train wreck, whereas Obama is raising $1M a day from us cultist kool-aid drinkers.

BTW, why isn't Hillary OR Obama the Majority Leader of the US Senate right now? Any clue?
Couldn't be that the leadership roles are handed out to the longest serving members, now could it?
I wonder if the same is true for the Illinois Senate. Ya think?
No, that can't be... because that shoots your theory that because Obama didn't occupy a role like that in the Illinois Senate, it means he isn't a "real"(tm) leader. :sarcasm:

[Tactical Progressive]

46. Yes, you did.

You can tell that you did because you are the one who brought up Martin, not me.
Neither I nor anybody had to jump to that conclusion. You brought it into the mix.

The reason you did is because you need to avoid addressing the issue in the only way it can be addressed.

You are pretending that the same criteria should apply to both. Your reasoning is that saying Obama has shown no leadership
is saying that MLK showed no leadership. That's where you equate the two. Except that it's very faulty reasoning.

Look, an astronaut shows leadership when there's an oxygen leak by keeping his cool and running the procedures to fix it.
He doesn't show leadership in that situation by rising up through the leadership ranks of a legislative body.
On the other hand a legislator shows leadership by rising up through the ranks of the leadership of his institution,
not by fixing an oxygen leak.

Martin showed leadership in his domain. Obama didn't in his. You claiming that I'm saying MLK wasn't a leader because he
didn't rise through the leadership ranks of a legislative body, shows a basic failure of reasoning on your part.


The premise of this thread is simple: Obama showed little leadership in his state legislative body.
He has little more proof of leadership than he does experience, and the replies on this thread hasn't come close to showing otherwise.

[lligrd]

48. I Thought Repeating Lies Was A Republican Tactic

Rove is that you? I see you have also resorted to the straw man tactics they are so famous for? Too bad for you that the prior posts are clear to anyone with at least half a brain.

[lapfog_1]

53. I brought up MLK to show that there are different forms of

leadership. Something that you fail to acknowledge.

It's all right here in your post:

"Look, an astronaut shows leadership when there's an oxygen leak by keeping his cool and running the procedures to fix it. He doesn't show leadership in that situation by rising up through the leadership ranks of a legislative body.
On the other hand a legislator shows leadership by rising up through the ranks of the leadership of his institution,
not by fixing an oxygen leak."

You are making a horrible logic error when you state that "a legislator shows leadership by rising up through the ranks" as though that is the ONLY way a legislator can demonstrate leadership. And you completely ignore my point that "rising through the ranks" is often a seniority perk. I think you ignore that because you know it to be true... and the TRUE reason that Obama (and Hillary) are not higher up in the US Senate. Both are still the junior Senators from their respective states.

It wouldn't matter one whit if Obama had been the greatest leader in the Illinois legislature since, oh, say, Lincoln.

BTW, did you know that Abraham Lincoln (a great leader wouldn't you say?) spent FOUR terms in the Illinois assembly before even becoming a leader of the Whig party (this was before the founding of the Republican party). So I guess Mr. Lincoln didn't demonstrate enough leadership by rising rapidly through the ranks for you. See how stupid and silly your definition of leadership becomes. You are equating leadership in a legislative body with position. But there have been many who hold high ranks (one might even look at the current Speaker of the US House) who do NOT (in my view) demonstrate leadership. So it can't be that merely holding a high rank shows that you have leadership.

Anyway, it's a specious and stupid argument to say that leadership in a legislative body either depends or results in your elevation to high ranking position in that body.

[Tactical Progressive]

57. There are different forms of leadership

That's my point. Obama didn't live up to any noteworthy level of leadership in his environment.

And no, that doesn't even vaguely infer that MLK wasn't a leader because he didn't live up to the environment Obama is in. You brought that in, connecting the two to try to make the case that because I was judging Obama on a set of criteria that that judgement was somehow invalid because MLK didn't meet those standards - and since he was practically by definition a leader, that it refutes those criteria. It doesn't. Those criteria are in fact valid judgement criteria for Obama.

And furthermore, I never said that those criteria were the only ones on which Obama could be judged, which appears to be another inference inherent in your argument. They certainly are valid criteria, and important criteria. You don't want to accept that so you try to invalidate the criteria. But you can't. The guy spent seven years in a political organization which inherently values leadership. And he went nowhere. And it's not as if he shone at all kinds of other leadership criteria but eschewed a rise in stature within the institution (can you even imagine that with Obama, or Hillary?).

We're kind of talking past each other in a glass half-full/half-empty way. But you're going to have to acknowlege that Barack's, the guy who has placed the crown of leadership on his own head every day for a year now, failure to display institutional leadership in a political organization for nearly eight years, is a relevant point to make. And not just a minor relevant point either, but a fairly substantial one. Made even moreso by his relative lack of other examples of leadership. And yes, I know he sponsored some bills, and helped push others, and probably even wrote some himself. I'm not saying he sat there like a deadbeat. I'm sure he was as or even more prolific than the average Senator in that body.

But then, the average or even above average Illinois State Senator isn't touting his leadership skills to run the country with little to no other experience either.

I might be getting my respondents mixed up, but if you're the one with management experience, how would you feel about someone in your organization for seven or eight years who never even rose to the level of project manager, declaring he's the leadership king and has earned the right to run the whole organization? It's a serious question, and one which doesn't lend itself well to philosophical postulates that someone off the street without so much as an inkling of what you do or how you do it could conceivably be a better natural leader than anyone in your organization. Sure, they could. But I'm guessing you'd probably look at someone in the organization, and someone that had proved their organizational leadership abilities more than once in more than one context.

So why don't you try to confront the issue here - eight years in a political institution with supposedly great leadership capabilities and he doesn't move up at all. It isn't the only leadership criterion, but it certainly is an important one.

[Window]

29. Very well put.

Peace:thumbsup:

[Recursion]

6. Er, no, I don't agree with that

I first heard of him back in 2000 when I was doing some lead paint advocacy and he was leading a very strong push on that.

[anamandujano]

42. I hope it didn't end up like this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=3&ei=5087&em=&en=095184f64ec13024&ex=1202187600&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1203140632-QOk0Kc9aubChATXhld7CzA

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

snip

“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money.

snip

“If Senator Obama had listened to industry demands, he wouldn’t have repeatedly criticized Exelon in the press, introduced the bill and then fought for months to get action on it,” the campaign said. “Since he has over a decade of legislative experience, Senator Obama knows that it’s very difficult to pass a perfect bill.”

Those are my four paragraphs of quote but basically--the article is not very long--it ended up that they would have to rely on Exelon VOLUNTARILY disclosing this important information.

I love the comment from the campaign, “Since he has over a decade of legislative experience, Senator Obama knows that it’s very difficult to pass a perfect bill.”

[woolldog]

8. Do you read this board?

There have been countless threads detailing Obama's accomplishments and record in the state senate. If you're not familiar with them, we can only assume you're lazy.

With the assistance of Senator Jones, Mr. Obama helped deliver what is said to have been the first significant campaign finance reform law in Illinois in 25 years. He brought law enforcement groups around to back legislation requiring that homicide interrogations be taped and helped bring about passage of the state’s first racial-profiling law. He was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html

(See the graphic on the left side of the page of this article for a more detailed look at his legislative accomplishments)

[Tactical Progressive]

13. Some of those seem worthwhile

Nothing more than I would expect any State Senator to have on his record.

Still doesn't address the point of this thread.

[lligrd]

14. What "Leadership" experience Did Abraham Lincoln Have

before he was elected? About the same as Obama's?

[lapfog_1]

18. Oh NO... now you are comparing Obama to LINCOLN

... blah blah blah...

(jumping the gun here on the expected response from the OP).

and, oh, btw, :sarcasm:

[lligrd]

20. Yep, I Caught The Response Above

Funny how we see it the same but the OP doesn't get it.

[Tactical Progressive]

22. So now Barack is Abraham Lincoln too? MLK and Abe? Rolled into one?

Any others in there? What ridiculousness.

Is Hillary then JFK and FDR, with a good dose Of George Washington thrown in? I think we deserve that more because we need a fighter like George, and someone skilled at dealing with an upcoming depression like FDR, along with a bridge to the future like JFK. Hillary is emminently more qualified than Obama since we don't have a Civil War coming up. LOL!

Abraham Lincoln didn't run around the country with little more than telling everyone they are "Hungry for my leadership."

[lligrd]

23. Nor Did He Run Around The Country Lying About His

superior experience.

[Tactical Progressive]

27. Actually he did.

But that's not on point either.

[lligrd]

30. Care To Elaborate?

I can only surmise that your only point is that you worship Hillary and don't really give a flying f*** if your point is valid or not.

[lapfog_1]

43. What did I tell ya!

there it is. Wow, even after I predicted his/her silly response, they went ahead an wrote it anyway!

Good grief.

Here, let me name some other figures from history, apropos of nothing in particular..

Attila the Hun.
Frederick the Great.
Elizabeth the First.
President Washington.
President Grant.
Margret Thatcher.
Eric the Red!

See. I just "compared" Obama to ALL of those people from history.

Just as you compared him to Lincoln!

[lligrd]

44. You Must Be Psychic lol

You missed my Hitler one above. Never got a response to it so I assume I won.

[dkf]

19. All I know is his leadership has put together a really impressive campaign.

Everytime I look at what he has accomplished, being able to put together a better organization than Bill and Hillary Clinton who have done this for eons, I am blown away.

He definitely outstrategized and outperformed her to this point.

Say what you will...the guy has shown me he has chops.

[lapfog_1]

21. Well, he has the JUDGMENT not to hire a Mark Penn.

that says a lot right there.

Being that I now live in an insignificant state!

[dkf]

28. Well, I used to live in an insignificant state, but they are sending Chelsea out here.

Fascinating how these things go...

When they want your vote, you are significant, when they've lost your vote, you are insignificant.

[Window]

35. LOL!

Peace:thumbsup:

[Tactical Progressive]

32. Well, he hired a bunch of old, experience Clinton political people

while talking outside the other side of his mouth about change and a break from the past. So it's not all that impressive.

Mostly he has the media 'Goring' Bill and Hillary relentlessly, worse even than they did to Al Gore in 2000.

Nothing to get 'blown away' over, unless you were very 'impressed' by the way George W's 'leadership' outstrategized and outperformed Al Gore. Just like then it's the media packing on smears and lies while protecting and coddling whoever goes up against a Clinton or a Gore.

Some "chops". Obama struts around saying nothing and racebaiting. That's real "leadership".

How about you answer my question about leadership instead of being impressed with that.

[dkf]

39. So the old Clinton people that Obama picked

outstrategized the actual Clintons?

Are you saying that its not Bill and Hillary that won previous elections, but the bunch that Obama has now?

In that case, he's a genius for hiring them away from Bill and Hillary.

Say what you will, the fact that he is executing a game plan that is well thought out speaks volumes to me. That is leadership.

On the other hand, Hillary's campaign sounds dysfunctional to me. That shows a lack of leadership.

I have learned way more about leadership styles watching these campaigns than I ever did by watching either of them in their legislative careers.

[Political Heretic]

25. I'm not uncomfortable with these questions at all.

Obama has little leadership at the national level - none in the executive branch, and little in the Legislature. I don't think there are any Obama supporters trying to pretend that isn't true are there? If there are, I am not one of them.

Even at the state level, he doesn't have the length of experience in state government that some politicians who run for President have had. No question. Before I give my reasons for supporting Obama, let me comment about what you "imagine" about the rest of his experience.

First off, an acknowledgment - I have been a community organizer and I am a macro-level social worker, so that may present certain biases. I have actually never heard Obama talk about his experience as organizer and civil rights attorney. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he hasn't at all. I'm saying that my information about his experience, capability and performance in his work in Chicago and Illinois came from other sources. I won't (and literally can't right now at work) link you all kinds of reference material to what I've read, because I'm not trying to convince you - nothing will. But I'm telling you why I feel the way I feel.

The reflections of others on Obama's organizing work in Chicago were things I found to be extremely favorable and positive - certainly reflective of traits I would like to see in a national executive. But of course, I think that the White House could use a little more of the community organizer and a little less of the beltway politician. Reference accounts from others about his work for Civil Rights also impressed me. And his work as a state legislator was also well-praised. In short, I think attempting to smear is role as an organizer, attorney or state legislator is the weakest of arguments. The strongest is his lack of national leadership experience.

What attracted me to Obama, after Edwards, were his policies. Yes, I know we've got the whole "he has no substance" thing going on here at DU. That's fine. I'm just telling you about me. When I was trying to see if I could genuinely support another candidate, I went to both Hillary Clinton and Obama's website and read everything. I read his blueprint for America, and discovered that I really support what he is proposing. I detailed the specifics, in my own words, in another thread that I have posted numerous times.

Then, after that, I started really tuning in to listen to what Obama had to say. It's true he is a gifted and inspirational speaker, and that's not a vice no matter how much some people try to make it one. But for me, I was interested in understanding the man's vision and values - his ideals about the direction in which America should head. I found myself in complete agreement. Most notably, though others disagree I believe that it is time for national leader committed to the changing the message to the public that ordinary people are irreversibly divided into two factions, that the American landscape is and must remain polarized, and that there can be no mandate or consensus among the 80% of America that is working class or poor.

The reality is that when push comes to shove, a majority of Americans turn out to be far more "progressive" on a wide range of issues than the policies or rhetoric of their government. When you present issues to ordinary Americans free of partisan rhetoric, they agree on many things. Ordinary people want health care. Ordinary people want privacy. Ordinary people want living wages. Ordinary people want quality education and access to college. Ordinary people want a fair tax system. Ordinary people want corporations to be accountable.

So, to sum that up, so far I have:

1) A candidate with background that was respected and that I respect
2) A candidate with platform policies that I support
3) A candidate with an ideology and vision that I believe in

This leaves one major issue - lack of national political experience. Obama is young, a junior senator and a washington outsider. How do I feel about that?

It comes down to this: I sincerely believe that "experience" in Washington is deeply, deeply overrated and a very poor indicator of what kind of people's representative or leader an individual will actually be. I think other factors are far more important. For example, Dick Cheney has one of the longest political resumes around, having being a Washington political leader for more than three decades, involve in the Nixon, Regan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr administrations at the highest levels. That really doesn't matter does it? Nancy Pelosi has a pretty decent "experience" resume - she's been pretty terrible as Speaker, in large part because her vision and ideals about how things should operate are ones I disagree with.

I could, if I was so inclined, rattle of a massive list of both Republicans and Democrats through history with incredibly long resumes of national political experience who were terrible at their jobs. I accept that Barack Obama has less political experience, especially nationally, than Hillary Clinton, and than other previous political candidates from the 2008 race. You see that as a weakness. In the context of everything else, I see that as a strength.

Conclusion?

-- I disagree with you about the quality of Obama's state experience in organizing, as a civil rights attorney, and as a state legislature.
-- I agree with you about the fact that he lacks national political experience, however I ultimately consider that a strength for him, not a weakness - and don't believe history shows us that experience is a key indicator of how positive a political leader will be.

[lligrd]

34. Very Nice And Thoughtful Post nt

[Window]

36. Great post!

Peace:thumbsup:

[Tactical Progressive]

41. Thanks for the response Heretic

It's too long to answer point by point, but I'll hit the four major themes I see:

First, you don't seem to deny my contention that he has shown no real political leadership on an institutional level. This is a bigger problem than you reckon, because he's been going around from the start telling everybody that we are "Hungry for his leadership." Which is deceptive. I see it on the order of "Govern from the middle" and "Uniter not a divider". Feel-good bs to lure in the politically non-adept. Just cynical in the worst way, in and of itself. Nothing 'new politics' about it, in fact it's the worst of the old politics. The only people who accept that kind of stuff are people who want who they want and don't care how they win. That's some endorsement.

Second, you talk about ideology and being comfortable with Obama. I have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary is more progressive than Obama. You talked a whole lot about agreeing with Obama's 'platform'. You didn't mention Hillary's once. That tells me you were already inclined towards who you already wanted to agree with. Sounds like you're fitting your politics to your bias, more than you pretend not to.

Third, I have nothing against 'community organizers'. I just think, based on every other inflation that Obama paints himself with, and the way he talks about that stuff frankly, that he didn't do near as much in that context as he pretends he did. He's a flat-out resume inflator on every level and any reasonable person would expect that his community organizing claims are no different.

Fourth, the lack of national political experience. You admit he has little to none, but instead make the argument that it's no big deal. You're wrong, at least by your argument. You point out the failures that nationally politically experienced people can be and have been. That argument is fallacious. I can show ten experience surgeons that screwed up, which could make the case that experience isn't always effective. What that doesn't show, and can't show logically, is that someone who doesn't understand surgery is a good choice for the next operation. It's just a flat-out fallacious argument to say that because some surgeons are bad surgeons that non-surgeons are good surgeons.

Oh, and I don't believe we can work with Publicans in any meaningful context. All my experience has taught me we need to defeat Publicans to make a better world. I see a huge difference in those two perspectives even though they both require 'working with' the other side.

Overall, I take many of your points as being fair, or having elements of truth to them, but then you go off and draw conclusions, many of which you just chose to draw anyway, like ideology. And then the last one, the main one, which is just plain wrong. The only part of that argument that holds logical water was the part where you admit he really doesn't have the appropriate experience, which is truthful. Thanks for that; it's more than any other Obama supporter I've seen.

You kind of skirted around the 'leadership' issue that this thread is about, conflating it with 'experience', but I appreciate the response. I agree with much of what you said, again. But much of it seems to come 'from' where you want to be rather than leading towards it.

Thanks again.

[Political Heretic]

45. Response:

This is not intended to be point by point or anything, its just helpful to quote certain things in order to respond.

First, you don't seem to deny my contention that he has shown no real political leadership on an institutional level. This is a bigger problem than you reckon, because he's been going around from the start telling everybody that we are "Hungry for his leadership." Which is deceptive. I see it on the order of "Govern from the middle" and "Uniter not a divider". Feel-good bs to lure in the politically non-adept.

Careful - I didn't say he has shown no real leadership "on an institutional level." In fact I said quite the opposite. I said he does not have extensive experience at the national political level. And by default, if he has not had the experience on the national level, then he has not had the opportunity for a lot of leadership on the national level. It's not deceptive to talk about his leadership, because there's more to being a good leader - even in Washington - than experience. In fact, experience historically ranks a lot further down on the list of what it takes to be a good leader. Character, ranks pretty high. Ideological commitment and vision rank pretty high as well.

This is possibly another difference between us. You may believe that more objective and quantifiable traits are most important in determining leadership ability. I don't. In fact, my years as a hiring manager taught me that a stunning resume of "experience" is next to no indicator of the kind of leader a person will be.

Second, you talk about ideology and being comfortable with Obama. I have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary is more progressive than Obama. You talked a whole lot about agreeing with Obama's 'platform'. You didn't mention Hillary's once. That tells me you were already inclined towards who you already wanted to agree with. Sounds like you're fitting your politics to your bias, more than you pretend not to.

You base the belief that Hillary is more progressive than Obama on what? I didn't mention Hillary's platform because they are nearly identical, and that was in fact part of my point. I like Obama's platform, and when I said they were nearly identical my point was that I thus like Hillary's platform too - and therefore I must move on to other factors beside just policy when making a decision between them. You've jumped to conclusions about my motives without considering alternate possibilities, which indicates to me that you are just as likely to be suffering from the very bias you accuse me of - the confirmation bias, seeing things only in a way that reinforces what you already think.

Third, I have nothing against 'community organizers'. I just think, based on every other inflation that Obama paints himself with, and the way he talks about that stuff frankly, that he didn't do near as much in that context as he pretends he did. He's a flat-out resume inflator on every level and any reasonable person would expect that his community organizing claims are no different.

I'm not going to get into this much, because its hard to debate a "guess." I can't argue about that. It doesn't really take a significant amount of effort to find a large array of references and endorsements from people who worked with him as a community organizer and attorney, nor does it take much to find evaluations from organizations that worth with him in the state legislature. I'm comfortable with his work in these areas, based on those evaluations and recommendations.

Fourth, the lack of national political experience. You admit he has little to none, but instead make the argument that it's no big deal. You're wrong, at least by your argument. You point out the failures that nationally politically experienced people can be and have been. That argument is fallacious. I can show ten experience surgeons that screwed up, which could make the case that experience isn't always effective. What that doesn't show, and can't show logically, is that someone who doesn't understand surgery is a good choice for the next operation. It's just a flat-out fallacious argument to say that because some surgeons are bad surgeons that non-surgeons are good surgeons.

You are making a fallacious counter-argument, by comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing an objective field - surgery - to a subjective one - political leadership. I offer a counter-example:

I worked as a project manager in a fortune 250 hi-tech company for six years. When hiring for my department, I began to notice a trend. The specific work we did in our area required a high degree of critical, creative thinking. The employees we hired who came from the expected backgrounds, with Computer Science degrees and technical certification to do the engineering jobs we needed worked out the poorest. We fired several. The people who worked out the best were completely non-traditional, holding no CS degree, coming from completely different backgrounds. However they had exactly the creativity and critical thinking capacity needed to make them extremely successful at their jobs. Likewise, I held a philosophy degree, had no training or background, and was hired to work at this hi-tech company where I was promoted six times in three years and had employee reviews at the top end of the scale every year I worked there.

The same would not be true if I went to apply to be a brain surgeon. It's a quantitative field, and I would fail and fail terribly if I did not have technical mastery of it. Political leadership is not a quantitative field. It is a qualitative field. Experience can be a huge asset. Or not. It is not the key variable in determining whether or not someone will make the best nominee.

Oh, and I don't believe we can work with Publicans in any meaningful context. All my experience has taught me we need to defeat Publicans to make a better world. I see a huge difference in those two perspectives even though they both require 'working with' the other side.

It's not about the parties. Not talking about working with the Republican party. I'm talking about the fact that when you strip the partisan framing away, so that people don't know whether a question is a "liberal" or "conservative" one, the American PEOPLE are far more progressive than their government on a wide variety of issues and share those issues in common with each other. The idea that the best approach for a better tomorrow is to "defeat" half of your neighbors is idiotic. Now defeating the washington republican party that has completly betrayed its own ordinary people - that's a different issue.

[Tactical Progressive]

49. Those are all fair points

I can't respond to them now, so let's leave it at that unless I get some time later.

Well, let me just say one thing even though it's off-point for this thread. I understand the distinction you are making as quantitative v qualitative. Don't know that I'd label them as such but yes there is a difference whatever you call it. I don't think that they are disjoint though. You seem to almost obviate political experience in your approach. As if leadership exists in a vacuum. People can be naturally good surgeons and natural leaders, but neither will fulfill their potential without alot of experience in their respective domains.

Which leads me back to the point of this thread: I haven't seen much example of Obama's political leadership other than out of his mouth.

Tell me, since you were in management. Wouldn't you expect a natural leader to show some signs of it after eight years in an institution?

[lapfog_1]

54. Bingo!!!

"This is possibly another difference between us. You may believe that more objective and quantifiable traits are most important in determining leadership ability. I don't. In fact, my years as a hiring manager taught me that a stunning resume of "experience" is next to no indicator of the kind of leader a person will be."

Me TOO! I have been either a project lead, department head, CEO, or CTO for the last 28 years. I've hired dozens, perhaps 100s of people. At one point in my career I had 70+ subordinates. And I NEVER hired based on experience. Experience was something that the "right" person could gain, but basic smarts and instinct and attitude was something that could NOT be instilled, no matter how much experience someone has. I told almost every interviewee "You need to impress me with your talent, not your job history". Other managers hired experience... but I always had the better teams!

[lapfog_1]

47. You are confusing experience with leadership.

Something that the OP has done by definition.

Leadership can take many forms. It does not have to be "role restricted". Nor does elevation to high office demonstrate leadership. I worked for people that I had zero respect for, even though they had the leadership spot in the organization, and I've worked for people who were great leaders, even though they only had minor roles.

I will agree with anyone that posts that Obama does not have a great deal of experience, especially at the job of POTUS. The US has, for a good number of years now (48) not given the role of POTUS to anyone who hasn't either been second in command of the executive branch of our national government OR been in charge of the executive branch of a state government.

This year, no matter who wins (unless weird things happen at the conventions), we break that streak. All three of the top candidates have ONLY legislative experience. Not even managerial experience at a corporation. The most executive experience of any of the top three is John McCain, by way of his stint as commanding officer of VA-174, a training squadron of naval pilots. Otherwise, we have the vicarious experience of Hillary as First Lady of Arkansas and then First Lady of the United States. And Obama's stint in the Illinois Senate. And all three are current US Senators. McCain also served in the House. However, despite there being a number of Republican administrations, McCain never served in any of them in the executive branch. I wonder if he was asked and refused... or was never asked?

So, this election, we are electing someone (no matter who) with NO, none, zero, nada, zip, direct executive branch experience. None of them have had to be responsible for the decisions made. Nobody is going to write in the history books that Hillary ordered the attack on Saddam. Nor will it fall on John McCain, nor Barack Obama. It was and is George Bush's war.

However, we can make determinations about leadership and judgment.

Here is where I believe Obama separates from Hillary. Hillary voted for the IWR. Barack has contemporaneous speeches that show that he was NOT in favor of the war, encompassing the very feelings that I had (and couldn't possibly articulate as well) at the time. Hillary showed a lack of judgment and put her faith in GWB. A flaw that I can forgive (should she ever ask for that forgiveness) but cannot overlook when selecting a candidate. I won't even go into why I won't pick McCain. Obama has shown the type of leadership that ones gets from someone who leads by inspiration. I have confidence that he will continue to make the right decisions.

Would I prefer that a candidate run who also had executive experience AS WELL AS judgment and leadership? Sure. Al Gore (who I've seen up close and personal in a meeting when he was VP) has demonstrated leadership and judgment and has experience. Unfortunately Al Gore didn't run this time. Given that I had to make a different choice, I picked Obama.

And we hope that he selects a very experienced team to go with him... and has the leadership and brains to not pick "yes people" and to listen to his team. All things that the current POTUS did not and probably could not do.

As for the concerns that Obama doesn't have leadership... I say bullshit. He demonstrates leadership with every speech and with every position white paper. As for the concerns about lack of experience... those are valid concerns. But they are the SAME with all of the current leading candidates for the office. So how can anyone choose based on that as the criteria. All of them fail the experience test.

[lligrd]

50. Very Nicely Said

If only Gore would have run. Or Kucinich stood a chance. Giving up on all of that, although Obama is far from my ideal candidate, he is a lot better than Hilary whose leadership (and yes every person in Congress has already been granted a position of leadership regardless of what the op suggests) abilities have been reduced basically saying "whatever you want" to Bush.

[Window]

31. No. We DO NOT agree.

:thumbsdown:

[izzie]

37. See NYT on how they vote in Ill. IN the paper this morning.

I found the Bill had a wife when he was in office. I did not know she was voted in to do one thing but be his wife. IN DC or AK. I do not recall what she has done in Congress. Congress is more a group thing any how. I do think she is smart and all that but face it she was not voted into anything before NY state and hardly ever worked for the govt but for a time when Nixon was in office if I recall right. I am willing to bet the Obama has worked more as a voted in person than she has, if we want to count days. If we are looking for time in office mayne we should put in one of those 80 year old guys from Congress?

[sendero]

51. Nobody gives a rat's ass..

... cuz HRC has done no better.

One of these days the thick among us will realize why and how presidents get elected. It's not the record, and it's not even the issues.

But if it were, HRC would have done even worse.

[johnnydrama]

52. so in essence

The only possible way somebody can be a leader is what they do as an elected offical?

It's not possible to be a leader as a private citizen?

This is what it's come to? How many years you have been in Washington is how you are regarded?

[earthlover]

55. The Spin Cycle is running overboard with this OP!

It would help your case to be more accurate and less...er....misleading

[NJmaverick]

56. He LEADS a better campaign the the one that tries to claim she is "ready"

What a joke, Hillary blew a big lead, hired the wrong people, flounders for a consistent message and burned money like it was fire wood. Yet her hounds suggest the man that has lead the most brilliant campaign in history, doesn't know how to lead? Stop grasping at straws already!