Voters Were Naive About Obama
>> Thursday, March 11, 2010
More than one year after Obama took office some of die hard supporters are feeling disappointed that he hasn't brought the change he promised. Washington is business as usual and some might argue even worse than usual. Unemployment is still high, the economy is weak and his one year focus on health care is dragging on. The focus of a recent CNN report I watched was on younger Obama voters - the ones who rallied for him online, supported his grassroots campaign and were an important base.
How much change were they expecting from him? Did they expect him to go to Washington and magically change government over night or even in one year? Is it even reasonable to expect that one man would even be able to accomplish all he promised. Obama over-promised in his campaign. It's best to remember the saying "over promise, under deliver" - it just of course does not usually apply to Politics.
If you think about it for a minute, what leadership and governmental accomplishments could Obama actually point to? He never actually ran/governed anything on his own. While his work as a community advocate is great, and he was a State Senator and U.S. Senator, what indication was there he would be able to ship Washington into shape? While Rudy Giuliani has a long list of faults, he accomplished a great deal with NYC, and Mitt Romney ran private businesses, turned around the Salt Lake City Olympics and was Governor of Massachusetts. Now as I've written about before in a past post, past success does not always guarantee future potential, but it is an indicator. Obama was a great campaigner, and an inspirational speaker. Leadership and inspirational skills are incredibly important for a President, however, voters should not confuse the ability to give a speech with running a government.
None of the above points are new - they were available during the campaign and election. However, how many people considered them?
Finally, times are tough, but what have some of the people who are complaining done to make a difference? Perhaps its pointless, maybe not, but for example, have they ever written their congressman or volunteered to help a civic activity? Also, I wonder if the economy were better, how much happier would these people be with Obama?
Posts
2 comments:
The presidential campaign all boiled down to rhetoric and likeability. People easily bought into stardom and the buddy factor prevailed (much like it did in previous elections). Obama is probably a great person, he seems very knowledgable and smart, and he is well educated and witty. However, while these qualities may help to get elected, putting them into practice in a leadership role is a whole different story. People were saying how Hilary is simply not likeable, how they don't want a repeat of the Clinton era and how her experience is overrated. But just think about it for a second, I believe that it is exactly her pitbull quality that may have helped to get the ball rolling faster. I think a leader doesn't just have to be nice and likeable, but they need to be able to put their foot down. And however charming Obama is, he might be too good of a guy to effectively do just that. I wouldn't write him off yet, but I am also not surprised that things didn't change overnight as it was promised. Pretty words may pave the path, but this path must also be walked on and in the end what counts are results not well delivered motivational speeches.
Thank you for your comment. An interesting follow up from hedge fund manager Julian Robertson about Obama(http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3443917/For-love-and-money)
"...but you can't run the biggest business in the world having never run even a country store."
"And he's running into that and he's just doing an awful job and people see it. He's enough of a politician to see it – although he's so cocky maybe he doesn't see it."
One should keep in mind though, that Robertson hasn't really run a major business though either...
Post a Comment