It's always strange to see names which are well-known only to Illinois politics (like Senate President Emil Jones) pop up in national politics.
From TalkLeft, which I assume is supporting Clinton (or at least the author of this post is):
Barack Obama frequently cites his impressive record as an Illinois state legislator as an indicator of his experience in running for President.
Turns out, according to former Chicago reporter Todd Spivak, all of his legislative accomplishments were in his final 7th year and were handed to him by his mentor, Ill. State Senate President Emil Jones.
The TalkLeft post is mostly quotes from a longer piece in the Houston Press, which is just brutal. Our old local boogeyman, Chicago State University, also features prominently.
Saw this info also pointed out in comments on a similar thread on RedState which was talking about his habit of taking credit for the work of others in the US Senate:
I guess if you never led, at least one can hope to look like you have. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock
Good leaders have one thing in common.
They have a callous from the bell collar.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
"I guess if you never led, at least one can hope to look like you have. :-)"
That's an interesting point. Are you basing your claim that Obama has "never led" on the Washington Post article, or the Talk Left write up?
This weekend I was listening to State Week in Review on WILL-AM (a group of reporters who cover state politics - they pretty much run toward the conservative side, imo) and they were discussing Obama's speech from Tuesday and his accomplishments during his time in Springfield. Two of the reporters on the show had covered Springfield politics during the entirety of Obama's time there and both had many nice things to say.
Obama actually led the charge on a number of important piece of legislation, but these reporters seemed most impressed by his work with law enforcement. He apparently worked hard to build coalitions that created laws dealing with the videotaping of homicide interrogations, racial profiling, and death penalty reform, all while making friends and allies with law enforcement agencies.
I know that since his time in the US Senate he was the lead sponsor on at least three major bills, one dealing with ethics reform, another dealing with nuclear proliferation, and the third dealing with government transparency. I know there have been more than this (didn't he work with McCain on immigration reform?) but I don't have them off the top of my head.
Look, it is one thing to criticize the guy for his politics if you disagree with him (he is pretty liberal) but to say he has "never led" is just ridiculous. If you really believe that, how 'bout backing it up with some facts? I've spent plenty of time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Timothy V. Johnson is anything but a leader, so I know it isn't hard to do.
Of course Obama isn't Johnson. But isn't that the point?
I wouldn't support Johnson for president either. Just for the record. I've never heard of him actually leading anything ever either. At least nothing that would ever come close to being the greatest leader of our generation as has been claimed about Obama without a single example of him leading anything ever. McCain has a hard enough proving any leadership credentials as a legislator... his biggest problem in that department is that the leadership he's known for were on bills that irk conservatives or date back to his military experience. That's the problem with Senators running... they tend to lack any executive experience. McCain's maverick history both helps and hurts him in this regard. Where McCain makes up for the executive experience is with so many years being directly involved with foreign policy issues for so long and of course his military background. Obama and Hillary are both noobies in the Senate relatively speaking and lack any executive, leadership, military, etc experience that would be relevant to the job of president and make up for their limited experience dealing directly with federal issues.
The Dan Quayle bit isn't a joke. They honestly have less relevant experience than him. They nearly have less experience than him *combined*. Back in the day he was ridiculed for being too inexperienced to be VP, let alone President. Richardson still seems like the logical choice for democrats of those running this go around, but it's a bit late for that now.
Of the options left Obama is certainly superior to Hillary for liberal Democrats. The guy is hardly perfect, but he's no where near as disingenuous as Hillary... I'm not even sure if he could manage to even come close to looking as disingenuous as her. For someone who generally supports the Democratic platform I'd consider him the most likely to stick to it of the two, whereas Hillary would be more likely to stick it to them to protect her position.
But that doesn't change my opinion that he should have capitalized on his rock-star status to pull off some great feats in the Senate instead of ditching his one and only claim to any relevant experience before he even completes a single term. Not just because it makes him look like an overly ambitious liar since he promised you, me, and everybody else in Illinois he wouldn't, but also because doing so at this point may cripple him later on once he finally builds up a reasonable resume. I can understand liking the guy but for people like me who simply just don't agree with him it leaves us scratching our heads why he'd risk it unless he's just insanely ambitious. I've heard his impllcation that his presidential run is necessitated as if it were the civil rights movement, but the analogy doesn't fit with nearly every Democrat running, including those with the resume fitting the job (Richardson) had nearly the same platform on the big issues he's focused on.
Needless to say though, I'm glad he's at least beating Hillary. But if Hillary wins you won't see me looking that gift horse in the mouth, since I'm definitely a McCain supporter this year. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
yeah, talkleft is a very pro-clinton site. i used to read it regularly, but the pro-clinton bias got so bad i stopped.
(didn't he work with McCain on immigration reform?)
- That was specifically addressed in the Washington Post article as an example where he did no work, but took credit. The ethics bill that passed was so weak that several watchdog groups actually opposed it, and the other ethics and transparency reforms that Obama frequently cites in his speeches never made it out of committee (which was pointed out in the MSNBC debates). The nuclear proliferation bill was the work of Senator Lugar, who acted as a mentor on the issue for Obama (I believe that was written about in the Chicago Tribune a couple of years ago). The student gets the credit of the teacher? I don't think so.
So ... to be clear. When Obama works on a bill he is doing no work. When he passes legislation that he worked on the legislation sucks. And when he passes legislation with a Republican Senator that doesn't suck, he is really not responsible for the legislation, it was the Republican who made it happen.
Well, I guess somebody could try to prove these claims. But using government search engines to track down Obama's work must be a step too far. Just retelling what the media has said seems proof enough when it comes to Obama.
Sounds "fair and balanced" to me.
"When Obama works on a bill he is doing no work. When he passes legislation that he worked on the legislation sucks. And when he passes legislation with a Republican Senator that doesn't suck, he is really not responsible for the legislation, it was the Republican who made it happen."
Heh. Sometimes, yes. Like on the bills he was caught taking credit for working on that nobody can seem to find him working on much at all. Better way to say it may be that sometimes when Obama "works" on a bill he does little to no actual work. When "he" passes legislation sometimes as his own, it's somebody else's legislation that others have done the work/leadership on to get through the process, either successfully or not. I'm sure he's tried to lead on a few things in his few short years in Washington, but given his uber-junior status it'd be difficult for him to lead as much as get free passage from the big dogs. Same would be true of almost any brand spakin' new GOP Senator.
The point is that a Senate seat isn't inherently a leadership position and even McCain faced some grief for it in the primaries against governors, a big city mayor, etc. McCain's tactic to offset that otherwise notable deficiency was to point out how his Senate and other experiences were applicable to the job of President. Merely being a legislator was a hinderance, not an aid, to the McCain campaign. Obama is primarily running on "hope" that "we can" "change" Washington and when asked about the resume holes he returns to those campaign themes.
But like I said, if you want to hear the strongest argument on how Obama lacks the experience to be President, ask Obama in 2004. As usual, he was quite convincing.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I honestly don't remember a time when so many generalities have been thrown out on a thread without even an attempt to support them with evidence.
Like on the bills he was caught taking credit for working on that nobody can seem to find him working on much at all.
Can you give an example?
Better way to say it may be that sometimes when Obama "works" on a bill he does little to no actual work.
What exactly does this statement mean? Could someone explain the "work threshold" that must be passed for a person to claim credit for something? Is this a standard we are holding to all of the candidates?
When "he" passes legislation sometimes as his own, it's somebody else's legislation that others have done the work/leadership on to get through the process, either successfully or not.
So there are specific cases in which Obama has claimed credit for legislation that he had nothing to do with? Or is it that Obama was a part of getting the legislation passed, but he didn't work as hard as the other guy, so therefore it doesn't count? Can somebody cite some examples?
Merely being a legislator was a hinderance, not an aid, to the McCain campaign.
I think that says more about the GOP, and poll numbers, than it does about McCain. Anyone who has been involved in the legislative process knows that there are legislators who are leaders in the groups and there are those who are not leaders. McCain, like it or not, is definitely a leader in the Senate. He has done a great job for his state and has also been involved with dozens of good laws that address the needs of the entire country. That is not an easy thing to do, and claiming that it doesn't require leadership is just ignorant.
On the same level, Obama has been in the Senate for a little over three years. During that time he has been involved in the passage of major legislation on the national and state level. I don't pretend that he has the same amount of leadership or power that McCain has in the Senate, but to claim that he "hasn't led anything" during those three years seems (again) ridiculous. Is he the greatest Senate leader since Dirksen? Of course not. Does it take real leadership skills to be a successful Senator? You bet it does.
Since when has Obama been a successful senator? I can't think of anything that he's accomplished since he became Illinois' senator, but I'd be happy to hear what anyone else thinks represents his successes.
Boon... I cited examples in my first post. Did you even read the WashPost article I linked giving fed level examples? Did you read the State level examples that this thread was started on? Did you have a problem with those examples? Did you want more examples? I'm a bit confused what you're looking for.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Oh, ok. I thought you'd go a bit further than just posting a couple of opinionated articles, especially since you alone made the claim that Obama has "never led anything". The articles don't prove that in any way. In fact they seem to only really represent a few isolated incidents in a long career. They are not attempting to project those isolated incidents onto the man's entire political career as you are.
So yeah, I would need more examples before we can all agree that Obama has "never led anything".
Examples of what? Him not leading? Doesn't work that way. People have been asking for any examples of him ever being a leader. I can't prove a negative. I'll be happy to hear about what he's actually led though. These were some of the examples he threw around, it wasn't much, but some folks think even they're inflated exaggerations. I've been waiting for perhaps some narrative from his early days of a community organizer... sure it may not be very relevant to presidential duties, but it'd be a start. Or anything behind the legislation he supported that shows some sort of leadership as opposed to merely jumping on board with other folks. The claim was made by others in a previous thread that he is some sort of great leader. No evidence seems to support the claim. I feel pretty secure saying he's never led anything since I have yet to hear even him claim to have led anything with any examples of actual leading as opposed to following others.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Got it. You want to slam the guy for "never leading anything" but have zero rational arguments to back it up. As usual. You want examples of leadership, but when I mention the reporters who covered Obama in Springfield have really good things to say about his ability to get things done and build coalitions, that isn't enough (you want specifics, look at his legislation to demand videotaping of homicide interrogations and the subsequent support of his candidacy for the Senate by the fraternal order), you ignore the point or disregard it. When his legislative accomplishments in DC are outlined they are quickly dismissed as irrevelant because someone somewhere said he was unprepared for a meeting at some point.
But perhaps the most striking example of his leadership abilities is the campaign he has run, which has catapulted a young, junior Senator from Illinois into the front-runner spot for the Democratic nomination and the Presidency of the United States. You might not understand much about campaigns, but they are large, complex organizations that require serious discipline to work effectively. It is not enough to just be a good candidate, you also have to be a good leader. Take a look a Rudy's campaign, or even Romney's. They were decent candidates, crafted to be perfect on the issues that matter. And they failed miserably due mostly (imo) to a lack of quality decisions and leadership in their campaigns. Obama's 2007/2008 primary campaign will be studied for years to come as a model of efficiency and effectiveness.
Does any of this matter? I think it does. But even if it doesn't make Obama the most qualified leader in the history of American politics, the examples that have been listed prove to any rational human being that Obama has indeed "led something" at "sometime". I have no doubt that you will remain unconvinced, Glock, because you don't seem to be honestly seeking the truth here. You want to declare that Obama couldn't lead a Girl Scout cookie drive and then leave it at that. You've got nothing to base your ridiculous claims upon and appear to have done zero background research to even lead you to your conclusion. It is actually pretty obvious (to me at least) that you don't know if Obama is really a leader or not, and that you obviously haven't given it much serious thought either way. Otherwise it would take you about five minutes to outline in detail why you've come to the rational conclusion that Obama has "never led anything".
Instead you just toss the ball back in the other guy's court and demand they prove you are wrong. It's pretty lame and, frankly, it is getting boring.
Later.
Well you can't very well expect anyone, me included, to provide examples of when he wasn't doing something. The concept just doesn't make any sense. And I'm sure Obama himself would love to see me proven wrong on this. Even he doesn't seem to have any examples of real leadership, he mostly avoids the topic. It has led me to believe that he's never led anything. Heck, if you had an example of him leading a Girl Scout Troop that'd be a start too. I'd have to modify my complaint to "never had any significant leadership experience." At this point it hardly seems necessary.
Your two best examples you could find was that he showed leadership by legislating... his job. It's a tough sell unless there was some dern impressive backstory behind it all. Like I said above, that's not what most people consider leadership and was part of the problem McCain had in competing with people with executive and other leadership experience. He attempted to compensate with the backstory, his maverick reputation, the work he did to garner support for the surge when most seemed ready to throw up their hands, being the top yahoo behind major bi-partisan legislation on touchy subjects, etc., not mere legislation, and his military background on the subject. Even McCain had a tough time trying to sell that when all a former governer had to point out is that he's already led a State and hope the record showed it to be in a way voters would like.
Your second example is that doing well in a presidential primary campaign is leadership experience. It's an interesting theory that has some holes. A political campaign is primarly begging for support and money by trying to appeal to as many voters as possible that is primarily done through the help of numerous campaign/political experts to market the candidate effectively. Personally I'd love to know how that's an example of leadership as opposed to good marketing. I'd also love to see Obama claim that his political campaign is what makes up for his apparent lack of ever holding a leadership position and lack of examples of leadership. It'd make a great clip for a McCain ad. The other big problem is even if you buy into this yourself, doesn't it kind of fall flat since he hasn't actually won enough delegates to win yet... yet alone the pesky problem that this is probably the most dragged out neck and neck primaries I can think of in my lifetime (perhaps I'm forgetting one?). If his primary campaign was proof of his remarkable leadership skill, wouldn't he be having a better run at it? As it is it appears highly likely that the fight will go all the way to the convention. If this is proof of leadership is he intentionally leading his party to be split and strongly divided between supporting him or someone he considers a known habitual liar?
Or do you have any examples that actually show some leadership or a leadership position, etc? Feel free to wait on me to provide examples of non-examples of leadership, that could be fun. Personally I'd expect the greatest leaders of our time to tout his leadership credentials... along with his supporters... if tthey'd like anyone to believe the claim. If they want folks to believe that he's ever led anything, a single example that shows such would be a good start.
I can see why a search for evidence of Obama leading could be an extremely unfulfilling and boring exercise though. I don't blame you a bit for throwing up your hands and giving up. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Obama actually led the charge on a number of important piece of legislation, but these reporters seemed most impressed by his work with law enforcement. He apparently worked hard to build coalitions that created laws dealing with the videotaping of homicide interrogations, racial profiling, and death penalty reform, all while making friends and allies with law enforcement agencies
Name one police union in the state that has endorsed him on ANY level. If he made friends with LEO's how come they dont come out and praise him?
This seems to be on point:
Thank you for addressing the subject with a desire for substance, bhss.
Glock - I have no idea how to respond to your last post. The guy does a good job in the legislature, but that doesn't count because it is his job. His campaign breaks all sorts of records for turn-out, fundraising, and appeal to new voters, but that is irrelevant too. You claim I am "throwing up my hands" because I apparently only listed three concrete examples of Obama's leadership, whereas you can't be bothered to track down a single factual argument to support your claim that he has never led anything. Your apparent ignorance of what it takes to be a successful legislator and run a successful campaign is one thing, not even bothering to try to support your arguments is just inexcusable.
For an example of how it can be done, check out this thread, in which I laid out the case that Tim Johnson is not much of a leader using facts and statistics available to any citizen with a computer and an internet connection.
Have a great day.
Like I said, I can't prove a negative. It just isn't possible. And also like I said, I wouldn't vote for Tim Johnson for President either. And you'll notice you found no disagreements from me on that thread. You can call me ignorant all you want, but merely being a legislator and merely running a campaign do not qualify for much in the way of leadership. It's a bad sell for any candidate, Dem or GOP, or Left-wing Messiah. :-)
And inspite of the fantastic fundraising you mention as proof that somehow campaign equates to leadership... he's still embroiled in one of the most dragged out primary elections I can remember... against a really dismal opponent... and so far it doesn't even appear that he can clinch the nomination without a convention fight. His record in government doesn't actually seem all that bad to me... just very irrelevant to the promotion he's after.
“When he said he was going to do something, you could always trust him on his word,”
Unless that something is completnig his Senate term and not running for president because as he explained, he would lack the experience. Obama, making the case against Obama for Prez since 2004.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed