Obama's first press conference

Some random thoughts about Obama's first press conference:

• It was civil.
• You didn't think questions were being avoided.
• Obama's remarks were infused with intelligence.
• The subjects ranged from the usual, to the difficult, to the personal.
• Obama showed a sense of humor without losing the gravity.
• You get the impression that these are men who want to do a good job and are girding up for it.
• You also get the impression they can be tough when they need to be.
• Obama's remark about being "a mutt" injected into a discussion of what pet dog would be chosen shows remarkable self-awareness and lack of fear about who he is.
• Obama was respectful and courteous even when he didn't answer a question directly
• It seemed to be what a Presidential press conference "should be".
  
• He came across as Presidential.

NOTE: If all of this sounds like a fan letter to the President-elect, it probably is. As time goes on, we will find plenty, no doubt, to be critical of and times when we don't agree with the President or his staff.

Denial by Republicans

What many Republicans can't seem to do is think clearly about why they lost this election. It's easier to blame the melt-down of the stock market and the failure of some of the largest financial institutions as the reason why Senator McCain lost. But, to the contrary, I believe that this time around what the Republicans needed was an effective chief executive, and McCain wasn't that person.

This is not sniping and criticism; it seems to me to be fact: First of all, McCain didn't know how to organize a group of people, how to "vet" those who ran his campaign so they made sense when they built strategies, how to mobilize them and actually lead them, how to inspire them. These are qualities of a good CEO, a good campaign leader, a good general. Sorrily, McCain never did seem to have those qualities and I've seen no example of where he did anything like that in his past actions.

I find it amusing that so many Republicans put Senator Obama down for being merely a "community organizer". The truth is that's a very good starting point for learning about organizing groups of people, about motivating them, about dirty tricks and resoluteness in the face of scarce resources. Especially on the rough South Side of Chicago. Someone said, and I really loved it because it nailed the situation, "Jesus was a community organizer."

The proof is that, despite the wreckage that George W. Bush leaves behind and the bad taste in everybody's mouth left by his terms in office and the incalculable damage he has done to this country that we love so much, McCain, with his flawed campaign, did so well. Had he broken with Bush earlier and stayed there instead of doing that at the last minute, and had he had the qualities that I've talked about above, he might be the President-elect today. Had McCain carefully vetted Governor Palin, who dragged him down as the descending polls foretold, and not impulsively chosen her, he might, indeed, be the winner. Had he put together a group that was capable of building a coherent program for our country, to really change our country, he might have had a much better chance.

All of the teaching about leadership starts with a leader's vision. It must be compelling and it serves to motivate those who hear it. But vision isn't enough. The organization that supports the vision must be built and must be managed. In both of these, because McCain vacillated all over the place and didn't have a consistent message, and because he didn't build an effective organization that worked together, his campaign failed.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves..." This quote, from Shakespeare, is a good one to remember when reviewing the ignominious defeat that the Republican Party has suffered during this election. But, truth to tell, I expect the Republicans to continue again and again to shift the blame to the bad economy as if it were a shield against taking responsibility for the outcome. The wound is too deep and too traumatic.

Why Obama is qualified

Although it may be difficult for you, as a Republican or Conservative (yes, I'm talking to those who would denigrate Obama), if you would listen to the very factual and careful interview segment dealing with Afghanistan on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC that she had with Senator Obama, and compare it with anything Senator McCain has said about that conflict, you would understand that Obama fully understands the nuances of the very bad situation and has a clear vision of what needs to be done to fix it. In calm, clear language he lays out how bad it is and what he would do about it. I hasten to add that this isn't posturing for the interview or for votes; it isn't slogans or politicking; it would win the respect, and probably does win the respect, of the military. Petreus would no doubt agree with it and probably will implement it if Obama wins the election. I urge you to listen to that segment and then re-think your position on this subject. No histrionics, no easy solutions, no vote-getting here, nothing but the laying out what we must do if we aren't to be engulfed. [The video can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/rachel-maddow-interviews_n_139402.html]

Turnabout?

There was a saying, when I was a kid, "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say sticks on to you." I started thinking about that when John McCain's campaign started using the following:

Step #1: Obama is associated with a terrorist.
Step #2 Obama believes in terrorism.
Step #3: Obama is a scary guy to become President.

Let's try this on, instead:

#Step 1: McCain went on vacations with a guy, a felon, who went to jail for 4 1/2 years because he did something dishonest.
#Step 2: McCain had a fund-raiser in the living room of a guy who broke the law and went to jail for 4+ years and advocates killing people, and he pals around with him.
#Step 3: McCain hangs around with known criminals, both of whom broke the law and went to jail.
#Step 4: McCain likes to hang around with criminals, convicted felons, and would be very scary as President.

The only trouble is that the first is somewhat murky and not proven, mainly innuendo, and the second series of steps is based on an open published record of Keating and Gordon Liddy's convictions, sentencing and jail terms and McCain.

I submit neither has a leg to stand on, but the first is what's being used, stupidly, I believe, because it didn't work to hoist McCain's polling numbers, as part of McCain's badly-run campaign. Once again, it has proven that old maxim. If it doesn't work the first time to get the result you want, keep repeating it and you'll keep NOT getting the result you want.

In McCain's situation, it would be smarter if he stuck to the issues. But some terrible masochistic impulse must be at work here. I'll say this sarcastically, of course ... Maybe Obama's operatives have infiltrated McCain's camapaign and are channelling Rick Davis, Phil Gramm, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and Schmidt to undermine McCain's campaign.

Response to Michael Barone

I quote from Mr Barone's article about Ohio and a possible Obama win there:

"But he is interested in advancing policies that could have serious wealth-destroying effects: higher taxes on high earners, protectionism, government-controlled health insurance, the card check bill abolishing secret ballots in union elections, which could have the effects on much of the private sector that United Auto Worker contracts have had on what used to be called, quaintly, the Big Three U.S. automakers."

The Big Three were weakened by arrogance because for a time they were monopolistic. GM made cars that people didn't buy while while Japan made cars that people loved and were of better quality.

Seems to me that much of what passes for Republican or Conservative punditry looks suspiciously like wish fulfillment. I believe the last resort of a losing side is to criticize the opponent who's winning. Some of it gets confused with campaign rhetoric, whose purpose is to scare the electorate into voting your way. The point is, if you're a Republican or Conservative who really believes in the principles espoused by your side, you want to carefully analyze what went wrong, why it happened, and what can be done to re-build your party and its principles so people are willing to vote for them again and so they really contribute to re-building our country.

I find it offensive for those who believe their side is losing to criticize the opposition by predicting that what will befall us all is all the ills that have already occurred in our country in spades. We are seriously in debt, we are over-extended and losing not winning in our so-called "wars", our assets have plummeted to their lowest levels, our economy is in shambles, and unemployment is a disaster, our retail sales incredibly low, and on and on. So if you're not trying to be disloyal - yes, disloyal to our country - is to say you'll give them a chance and would be willing to work with them to do what needs to be done to straighten things out. You're going into wish fulfillment land again if you believe that McCain, who everyone agrees (either out loud or privately) would get us out of this chasm when he can't run a decent campaign, can't organize the effort to be President so it holds together and works, can do a better job.

Obama and crew may fail, but by sniping at him, even subtly, you do our country a disservice and you need to examine your own positions carefully and deeply. Let him who is ... cast the first stone, you remember the admonition by the Great Teacher.