21st Century Wire says…
Since his inauguration in 2009, it’s been perhaps the longest honeymoon in political history lasting nearly 7 years. Now reality is finally setting in for the Democratic Party’s flailing would-be super hero…
Even The Post is now saying that, “Obama ruined things for the young, unaccomplished and inexperienced fast-talkers out there”.
STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE: Obama regularly invites NBA basketball stars, celebrities and pop musicians to join him on the links.
The disillusionment has not only hit the ‘undecided’ voters who pushed Obama past the finish line in 2012, but Democratic rank and file too. Once you get past the politics, the inexperience can, at last, be seen as a liability to voter, party and country, and no amount of smooth talking can change that.
Author Jennifer Rubin explains, “The bias toward governors — as we say, any governor over any senator — increases as the incumbent president collapses in rubble of his own making. Truth be told, anyone can write a speech for a candidate, but governing is hard and messy”, (see her full story below).
Many would agree, and here’s why…
In 2008, America was desperate to try something new with its leadership. After 8 years of a Bush Jr Presidency that seemed to represent privilege and inheritance – along with 8 years of continuous war, voters were no longer concerned with then trivial factors like ‘qualifications’, or ‘experience’. Public feeling on this was so great in fact, that the electorate even seemed disinterested about whether or not the candidate was even a natural born US natural born citizen, as specified in the 14th Amendment, or that he may have used other aliases earlier in life including a college nom de plume, ‘Barry Soetoro’, nor was the candidate ever made to produce genuine proof of his US citizenship other than an alleged digital birth certificate forgery posted on the White House website.
American voters simply did not care. They just wanted change.
Finally, after years of hoping for change, and getting nothing but too many crass jokes and even more golf swings, and blaming all his shortcomings on either the opposition or racism – even Obama’s ardent defenders are realizing that his meteoric rise was mostly a media and marketing phenomenon, and that his Presidency may just go down in history as one of America’s most epic political failures.
Others have accused Barack Obama (photo, left) of adolescent outbursts when he did not get his way, as well as other accusations of immaturity.
Many regard the Obama Administration as the most politics-obsessed White House since Richard Nixon. More journalists and whistleblowers have been targeted and jailed than in any other presidency in US history – indicating not only extreme paranoia, but an obsession with losing in opinion polls because of scandals leaking out. Bush may have declared war on Iraq, but Obama declared a War on Whistleblowing.
Putting aside for one moment their extracurricular activities or general criminal behavior (drugs, larceny, fraud and perverting the course of justice), the last three US Presidents have been some of the youngest in history, although their work experience does vary. Bill Clinton was sworn in at the age of 46 in 1993, Barack Obama was sworn in at 48 in 2009, and George Bush Jr was sworn in at 54 in 2001.
Arguably, Clinton came into his Presidency with the most experience as the 40th & 42nd Governor of Arkansas, serving from January 11, 1983 to December 12, 1992.
By contrast, Obama served less than one term in the US Senate, from January 3, 2005 to November 16, 2008. In reality, he was campaigning and raising money for his presidential run full-time from late 2007, so he really only logged in 3 years in working for his constituency. As far as real-world work or management experience goes, he had none. Somehow Obama managed to make it through his entire adult life as a ‘community organizer’ but derived his income through a series of foundations, before making it into the Illinois state legislature.
Bush wasn’t much better, having served as Texas governor less than 5 years, from January 17, 1995 to December 21, 2000, and like Obama, you can take a year off his term for presidential campaigning. The advantage Bush had over Obama however, would be in management and decision-making experience from a governor position, as opposed to the US Senate which is exclusively political and where members are often not even present for debates and voting.
MILLENNIAL PRESIDENT: Narcissistic behavior and trendy endeavors have been main features of the Obama Experiment.
From the WP Peanut gallery below the line:
“Obama is no more or less of a President than George W. Bush was. Neither make or made any decisions of any consequence. Their handlers do all of that. They get coached on talking points and speeches, make appearances, and sign off on what they’re told to.”
“Obama has decisively proved that an inexperienced, partisan glib talker with no management or executive ability is not qualified to run the country. His accomplishments are limited to campaign fund raising and speeches which appealed to the race-sensitive, guilt ridden, unquestioning (and unthinking) voters.”
Some hallmarks of Obama-style leadership since 2009: ever admit you were wrong, always project blame on someone else, never commit, stay ambiguous and always chose neutral words in order to avoid future blame, take credit for things which never really happened or haven’t happened yet, and always ‘lead from behind’ to avoid owning any situation.
Alas, America has finally grown tired of the fist bumps, the patronizing fake southern affectation, the rehearsed cadence and the collegiate NLP anchoring.
Like a Will Smith in a Hollywood production, Barack Obama has been playing the role of leader, without actually leading…
NO MORE HANDSHAKES: America’s ‘Presidential Experiment’ Obama, proving that you need more than cool to govern (Photo: Huff Post)
Obama ruined it for unqualified candidates
Jennifer Rubin
Washington Post
A writer for the Dallas Morning News decided to contrast the reaction to the Ebola scare from Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). I’ll cut to the chase:
On Monday, [Perry] announced the formation of a 17-member task force to better the state’s readiness to deal with pandemic diseases. “We have learned a lot about the unique challenges of situations like this, and it’s important that we continue to adapt our response to these realities,” Perry said.
Who would you rather have in charge? Perry, hands down. He’s the leader of the state and choosing to calmly navigate this situation. Cruz is working to amp up the panic, fomenting fear in the face of expert opinions (which say, for example, that shutting down flights is exactly the wrong thing to do).
I don’t know which is the more politically smart play for 2016, but I know who I’d rather have at the helm of a crisis.
That’s not fair to compare a governor who can and must run things to a senator, you might say. Well, if you were running an academic exercise, you would want a level playing field, but voters take candidates as they come. Some have more experience, others more charm and still others more D.C. experience.
There may be another intrastate matchup if Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) faces off against former Florida governor Jeb Bush. How can you compare a two-term governor who passed a lot of conservative policies with a freshman senator in the minority? Again, fair-shmair. Voters will look at the candidates as they are.
Candidates are not compelled to run for president with slight experience. Mike Pence, now governor of Indiana, had served in the House for five terms. Many Republicans wanted him to run for president in 2012. But likely for a myriad of reasons he chose to go get some executive experience and now has a few years at the helm in Indiana under his belt. Rather than a rash man in a hurry, he looks like a guy who has been a lawmaker, led a state and learned a lot along the way.
Whatever you think of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s bridge troubles now, he was under intense pressure to run for president in 2012. He declined and said he did not feel he was ready. At least he was honest.
In short, if you want to run for president before you’ve gained much experience and learned how to govern, go ahead. But then don’t complain that voters are judging you on experience and governing prowess.
In a real sense, President Obama ruined things for the young, unaccomplished and inexperienced fast-talkers out there. Before he came along, wowed people with eloquence and then faltered again and again, voters in the 24/7 era had come to think of being president as, yes, commander in chief, but mostly as the giver of big speeches, a traveler abroad and the reader of a much-too-long State of the Union address. The Obama experience has reminded people that that is a fraction of what the president really does. And that’s where the unprepared president faltered. The bias toward governors — as we say, any governor over any senator — increases as the incumbent president collapses in rubble of his own making. Truth be told, anyone can write a speech for a candidate, but governing is hard and messy.
If the senator-governor face-offs come to be (whether within state lines or across them) you will hear every senator argue that it is what you know and what you believe that matter. And you will hear every governor argue that it mostly is about what you have done and know how to do. Until Obama, it was a debatable proposition. Now? It is a bit ludicrous when you come to think of it.
Ready to replace one wild card with another one? Not so much…
READ MORE OBAMA NEWS AND SCANDALS AT: 21st Century Wire Obama Files
