|
Edited on Tue May-27-08 01:06 AM by nadinbrzezinski
Obama.
Here is the problem. Historically the argument that he is a kid, not experienced enough, et al, can be made about several Presidents.
In fact, many contemporaries made them about those future presidents when they were on the campaign trail
The first was truly Andrew Jacson, who came to the WH with quite a bit of experience actually, but since he was an outsider to the
system, he was portrayed by the press of the time as an inexperienced pup. Those who made the arguments were proven partially correct
when it came to the Central Bank and the crisis that followed his presidency. But the reason they wanted to keep him out of the WH truly
had nothing to do with the central bank, but all to do with Jacksonian Democracy and his idea that the people should vote, and
should make decisions. This was, even then, anathema to the Whig party, read conservatives.
The next president who was called too young to run and truly a pup was Lincoln. Remember, he was the member of a NEW Party, who wanted
to destroy some of the southern system. In fact, resistance to his leadership was such that this country fought a civil war over some of
the ideas of the GOP of the time. And yes, it was the Dems who were chiefly in the defense of the old system and the ancien regime.
When Teddy Roosevelt took the WHI, after McKinley's death. Some in the press didn't expect what came, and the series of reforms that took
the country by storm. And again those who were the power elite attacked the young President for all they could... and his cousin didn't fare much better in 1931, when he ran for the WH. Perhaps some remembered that Teddy did what he did, or perhaps some feared a change was coming,
and the usual suspects were trying to keep the Dem out. Now you should ask why
Then there was Wilson... who was a college professor for christ sake... with no executive experience! We may regret, even hate, our role in WW I and the rise of Empire, but he was a fairly good President
The next President who had this but he is too young used against him was Jack Kennedy. Indeed his experience was not that spectacular, and we know
that he was the man for the job during the Cuban Missile Crisis.... whether he'd be a great President or just an average chief executive we will never
know since he was cut down at Dallas... and his brother Bobby had the same used against him, and again history was a cruel mistress.
Now the same doubts about William Jefferson Clinton were also raised, since he was running against a very experienced Bush. He was a good CONSERVATIVE President, but effective as well. Most of us prospered, but the plutocracy did not get as strong or as fast as it has during the last seven years.
Is Obama a kid? Is he experienced? Only history will tell. But at this point when November comes we have a choice. We can vote "experience," such as Bush, both senior and Junior, or Grant, or Hoover... perhaps you'd like the experience of President Harrison... or perhaps James Polk is more to your liking. (Mexican-American War, which was the "vietnam" of his age)... Or is Rutherford B Hayes, his Fraudulency, is more to your liking? In that case, McCain, the successor to our present incarnation is your candidate.
Or perhaps you should start thinking... WHO HAS THE MOST TO GAIN from pushing this meme? Perhaps it is the same group of people who pushed it when the gentlemen I referred to above ran for office? Perhaps it is the same people who'd love to bring back a plutocracy to the US?
And for the record if Clinton had the nomination, the same group of people would be pushing a different variety of a similar meme, just in case she is not as centrist as they hope ... after all change is a threat to the plutocracy...
Class dismissed
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
