Friday, October 24, 2008

Done and Done

When the presidential campaign started lo these many years ago (I believe it was back in aught-1) my two favorite candidates were McCain and Richardson. They both had compelling resumes and seemed like honest fellows with good ideas. We lost Bill early in the process so my vote defaulted to McCain.

But over time that connection became diluted to the point where I began to seriously consider the other candidates. And in the end I took my ball-point pen and marked it as such:



















I wish Senator Obama had more experience. But given the choice between him and Senator McCain, I think Obama is the better option at this point in history. Here are my reasons:
  • Global Relationships. I am convinced that Obama will be a more effective global leader than McCain. The next president needs to rebuild the U.S. reputation abroad, restore a spirit of cooperation among allies, and pursue rapprochement with in-betweeners like Russia. This is critical to economic and national security. As Nicholas Kristof recently said, "you can’t fire cruise missiles at the global financial crisis." For the next several years, the U.S. president will need to work in a complex network of global relationships. Obama seems more suited to that future than McCain.
  • Financial Crisis. Now that we have partially nationalized the financial services industry, we will need a president who believes in government leadership. It would be a mistake to appoint someone with a "government is the problem" perspective (would you appoint Ellen DeGeneres CEO of Focus on the Family?)
  • Healthcare. Obama's healthcare reform plan has some problems, but it is viable and implementable. McCain's plan isn't either of those things - in fact, I doubt that even he takes it seriously. It's too much of a radical paradigm shift to get through congress and it's the wrong tool for the job (applying a financial market solution to a social problem).
  • Advisors. Based on recent evidence, I expect Obama to assemble a better team of senior advisors. Although, I should note that this was also one of the primary reasons I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 so my track record is spotty at best. See: Rumsfeld, Donald H; Cheney, Richard B; Gonzales, Alberto R; Brown, Michael D; Ashcroft, John D; Wolfowitz, Paul D ... [I'm tired of typing]
  • VP. Governor Palin just isn't up to it. Granted, Senator Biden has a serious problem with his mouth but he can do the job.

13 comments:

JBlog said...

You wish Obama had MORE experience? How about any?

He's never run anything -- not a company, a military command, a state, a city or town.

He has no foreign policy experience -- none.

He has a scant legislative record -- no direct sponsorship of any significant legislation, either in the Illinois Legislature or Congress.

He has no track record of working across party lines, and more importantly standing up to his own party.

So, please, someone tell me -- what exactly qualifies this man for the presidency?

Craig Bob said...

Another way to view the options is through a risk management lens. And there's no doubt about it - Senator Obama's leadership experience deficit introduces risk. The same goes for his limited insight into for-profit business and national defense. I'm sure there are others but these alone are significant.

But Senator McCain also introduces significant risks. He has been in government a long time - he's no business expert either. Senator McCain also lacks macroeconomic insight - a dramatic risk at this point on the timeline. Healthcare risk exposure will grow for uninsured Americans under a McCain presidency. U.S. pursuit of global terrorism is more likely to continue experiencing distraction risk by prolonged investment in Iraq under McCain. There are other McCain-based risks as well.

So when I view the choice as a roll-up of multiple risk and reward trade-offs, I see Senator Obama as the optimal selection.

If the leadership experience dimension is the single most important one to you, then you know your answer.

JBlog said...

That's an interesting discussion about the policy differences of the two candidates, but it doesn't answer the question: what are Barack Obama's qualifications to lead?

I have asked this question repeatedly throughout the campaign and not once has anyone been able to answer it in a substantive way.

So, from what I've been able to learn about his experience and the non-answers I receive to that questions I can only reach one conclusion:

Unqualified from day one.

(now available on hats, t-shirts and coffee mugs from Cafe Press).

Unknown said...

Global Relationships. Yes, let's negotiate with those who deeply desire our destruction. How DID that work out for Cartere and JFK? Not so well.

Financial Crisis. "Now that we have partially nationalized the financial services industry, we will need a president who believes in government leadership." Certainly, having started down the road to socialism, why shouldn't we elect the man who started out as a socialist 'New Party' candidate, who was the first or second most heavily 'bought and paid for' by Freddie and Fannie, - ana amazing feat for a junior senator. Why shouldn't we elect someone in bed with Acorn, a driving force behind the crisis which worked heartily to get loans for people who couldn't afford them. Isn't more of a bad thing good?

Healthcare. I'm not a fan of eather play but why not go with the plan from the socialist 12-year-old junior senator. I am sure that's better than the one from the vetran who has seen the battles, and actually might be able to make soemething happen.

Advisors. "Based on recent evidence, I expect Obama to assemble a better team of senior advisors." Current experience of... ...throwing everyone he is associated with under the bus when it becomes obvious that they are unrepentant (insert word here, among the possible choices: hatemongers, terrorists, loonies) Except that he hasn't reallly thrown Bill Ayers under the bus. Not really. He hardly knows the man who hired him, and that he worked directly with on multiple boards, and who he sent millions of dollars to.

VP. "Governor Palin just isn't up to it. Granted, Senator Biden has a serious problem with his mouth but he can do the job." ORGH. Doesn't it bother you that you complain about Palin's experience, when she has more than Obama? Would it suprise you to know that she has a higher security clearance and up until the election was briefed on security more regularly than them? It shouldn't - her responsibilities as commander of Alaska's National Guard put her in charge of key missile defense systems. And have you really looked at Biden? His failure to know what the VP does? (Yes the VP IS president of the Senate) Palin knew that. Wouldn't you think you would know the description for your own prospective job? Especially if it is VP of the US of A? Howabout history - Biden whomps it up good every day, but here is an all-time classic: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/23/biden-on-fdrs-management-of-the-1929-crash/

But *someone* HAS to be elected, and I think we tend to get the leaders we deserve and want, perhaps in that order. Maybe it is time for an inexperienced, uber-left candidate to rule these 57 states.

Unknown said...

p.s. Thanks for the forum to vent. I love thinking about politics, in case you didn't guess.

Revision: I DO think McCain's health care plan is kind of lame, but am more frightened of another government-run agency. Fannie and Freddie (which aren't that old) having worked out so well and all.

Typo: I meant 'Carter' not 'Cartere'.

Link: I forgot that blogger doesn't automatically convert links. Try Biden's historical rewrite HERE.

Craig Bob said...

J - You and I both see the leadership experience gap in Senator Obama's resume. I'm not surprised to hear that you haven't gotten a satisfactory answer on that specific question because there isn't one - you can't create something from nothing. I would like to have seen more leadership experience in his background just as I would like to have seen more economic understanding in McCain. But these are the choices that our system gave us.

So that's where my little risk/reward portfolio framework comes in handy. It helped me choose between two incomplete candidates based on the basket of characteristics the next president needs rather than focusing on just one (e.g. leadership experience).

Craig Bob said...

Ben - Damn, I was hoping you put the final "e" on Carter as a subtle Frenchification of his name!

You've argued against some positions and views that I personally don't hold. So I don't feel the need to pick up on those. But on the healthcare thing, if I understand it accurately the Obama plan leaves the current employer-based system in place while installing a safety-net plan for people who are not covered by an employer plan. Yes, there will be government involvement and expense -- but is there another way to support those at-risk poeple given our healthcare system?

And on the government leadership in financial services, it's the hand we've been dealt at this point in time. Given that reality, I want leadership in Washington that will engage positively, collaboratively help work through the considerable remaining issues that the markets haven't fixed yet, and then get the hell out of Dodge. IMHO, an Obama team is more likely to take that path. I'm afraid that a McCain team would not engage positively and they would get the hell out of Dodge too quickly - before implementing enough remediation.

Zeke said...

My mom lost her health insurance when she got divorced and moved out of state, and the people of Arizona ended up picking up the tab while she was treated over a two and half year period for breast cancer, stroke, rehabilitation, and finally hospice care. They did so without causing my mom to give up her home and drain her (very modest) assets. So "socialized medicine" has a different meaning for me, and what can happen to people who reside in the coverage gap is very poignant for me.

That aside, for all the talk of qualifications I seriously doubt that anyone has or will make their decision based upon that primary criterion. It certainly isn't the most important delineator between the two in my mind, which for me are temperment, judgment and foreign policy. And in those three areas I see McCain as lagging behind Obama.

Unknown said...

Darn, and I tried so hard to work with your original points. :)

I wonder... Cartre? More likely Cartier, non?

Craig Bob said...

That's what I meant by subtle! Cartere.

And maybe the reason I didn't recognize those positions is because we have significant disconnect in terms of degree. As examples, I don't view President Bush's advisers in the terms you used. I just think they gave him bad advice. And I am not complaining about Governor Palin's lack of experience, I just think she is not talented enough to be president.

Unknown said...

Such is politics nowadays. It's like we speak to each other, but the words have variant meanings. :)

Carne-terre?

Peace!

JBlog said...

"That aside, for all the talk of qualifications I seriously doubt that anyone has or will make their decision based upon that primary criterion."

Which is a darn shame, gosh darn it, because it reality it is probably THE most important criterion.

You're skipping the bowl of oatmeal and going straight for the can of Coke Zero.

Zeke said...

I prefer to look at it as opting for a thoughtful drink instead of an anger burger.