What I am about to write is partially in response to the post I had written earlier this week comparing the foreign policy credentials of Democratic Presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I had cross posted that post as a diary on DailyKos and (to put it gently) the general response I got from readers was that they wanted to know exactly why I thought Obama shouldn't be President. I'll start by asking: What exactly has Obama done to qualify for the job of leading the entire free world? In my opinion, absolutely nothing. He was elected to the Illinois State Senate in '96. He was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. So if you want to go in terms of actual public service, then Obama has a little more than 10 years, but in terms of readiness to be President, you really have to look at Obama's record and experience in the U.S. Senate. No offense to state senators, but that job doesn't exactly prepare you for Presidential politics, much less for the actual job of being President (not that there is anything that can truly prepare you, but you get my point). The truth is that basically whichever candidate has the most signs in a local community will win State Senate. There are no real debates and no real tests for the job of a State Senator, but rather the person whose name is most recognizable on the ballot when a voter votes will win . It's that simple. It doesn't take much work or ability.
That brings me to Obama's big U.S. Senate win in '04. Or was it so big? I mean, seriously, Obama's opponent was Alan Keyes. Sure, Obama had good ideas and ideals, but it wasn't exactly a tough campaign for Obama. He has yet to face a true, tough opponent in a big election scenario and I'm not sure Democrats should want the 2008 Presidential Election to be Obama's practice.
It's not that I hate Obama, but I just do not think he is ready to compete in what is sure to be one of the closest, toughest elections in U.S. history. I do not think he is ready to inherit the office of President with his lack of experience. As several candidates have said, the next President will not have time for, "on the job training". That phrase might seem like nothing more than old political rhetoric, and it could very well be, but the phrase is nonetheless true. There is such a myriad of problems facing the country that the next President will have to deal with: the Iraq War, healthcare, the environment, the economy, immigration, etc. It is my feeling that the next President will have to have experience to deal with those issues.
Obama and his supporters like to throw out the fact that he has "judgment" and "judgment trumps experience". Make no mistake about it, judgment is important, but judgment and experience can coexist. The fact is that Obama might have been against the Iraq War in 2003, but he didn't have to vote on it. He has said several times in interviews that he does not know how he would have voted if indeed he was in the U.S. Senate at that time. Other candidates were in the Senate at that time and did vote for authorizing the war, but that does not mean they do not have good judgment. Those who voted for the war were lied to and told that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the U.S. If those facts had been true, then the correct judgment would have been to defend our country. The problem was that President Bush and his administration lied to Congress. There was no reason for Sen. Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, and Biden to believe that Iraq didn't have WMDs; there was no reason at that time to believe they were being lied to. They voted to protect the country based on what they were told and protecting the country is always the right vote. Every single one of the Democrats who voted for the war have long since said that if they had known that Iraq didn't have WMDs and that they were lied to, they wouldn't have voted for the war. So while "judgment" is very important, Obama has no justification for claiming that he somehow has better judgment than everyone else.
A second argument Obama supporters like to make is that Obama is the only candidate who can bring about change. Just the thought of that should outrage all Democrats. What is the one name you think of when someone says the complete opposite of Bush? The name Clinton comes to mind. The truth is that any Democrat would bring radical change from the current administration. And again I'll point out that change and experience can effectively coexist. This too might be a talking point of several candidates, but it is true that someone must have experience to make change happen. Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and to some extent, Edwards, have decades of experience fighting for change. Obama has only a few years (I'll also point out that he voted exactly the same way as Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc. did when he was elected in the U.S. Senate on all the important issues, including the Iraq War). Hillary first starting working for change in 1977 when she worked (without pay) for the protection and rights of women and their children. She also worked hard to expand medical privileges to the poorest areas of Arkansas. Some say that Hillary's position as First Lady of Arkansas and the U.S. does not count as experience, but when you looked at what she fought for and accomplished in those years, it is clear that Hillary worked just as hard as any State or a U.S. Senator. Who can forget her daring attempts to get universal healthcare in '93 and '94. Dodd, Biden, and Richardson have equally impressive resumes when it comes to fighting for change. So while it is great that Obama wants to bring change, other candidates have actually brought change. "Change" is not just a word that can be thrown around. A candidate has to have the strength to bring about the change and quite frankly Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc. have shown that they know how to bring about real change. Obama has not.
So, as you can hopefully see, it's not that I hate Barack Obama, it's just that I do not feel he is ready to be President. There are far more qualified candidates who have an actual record of achieving meaningful goals. Obama "talks the talk", but the others "walk the walk". And let's face it, the only reason Obama is so well known is because of an awesome, inspiring speech he gave at the 2004 DNC. But let's remember that there have been many great speakers, but not many great Presidents. We need a great President, not a great speaker in 2008 (although hopefully a better speaker than Dubya). Maybe Obama will be ready to be President in the future, but he is just not ready at this time.
