Obama the Amateur

 by Steven D. Laib  

| View comments |  Print This Post

If nothing else, the  first debate of 2008 proved that Senator Obama is an inexperienced amateur who does not understand the essentials necessary for the job he is seeking.  

I must admit that my mind was made up on November's election long before I decided to watch last night's first McCain-Obama debate. My real interests were two in number; first, how would the Democrat candidate function without his teleprompter, and second, would either candidate commit any major gaffs. I found the experience rewarding in both respects.

At the outset I was quite surprised at Mr. Obama's ability to actually construct coherent sentences and answers that actually made some sense; surprised because I had heard him stumble so many times when faced with audience questions in the past.  Then it occurred to me that his staff probably had a reasonable ability to predict what questions he would face, and I knew that he had gone through many hours of practice.  This did not last forever.  This did not last forever.  Gradually, the older, more experienced McCain took command and the less experienced Obama was forced into reacting instead of attacking.  It was obvious that he was getting somewhat rattled; the more so as the evening progressed.  First there was his inability to answer Jim Lehrer on what of his economic plans he was willing to give up to help pay for the nation's financial bailout program.  It was obvious that he did not want to answer the question, and the roundabout statements he made showed clearly that he wasn't willing to give up anything.  This should have, in turn, led to the conclusion that Mr. Obama had no intention of giving up his plans, regardless of the consequences.  It recalls the time when he was confronted with the fact that increased capital gains tax rates would lower revenue.  He didn't care.  He said that he would do it anyway.  

On the other hand, Senator McCain may have overstepped Lehrer's question because his whole policy direction is based on cutting the budget and the size of government.  If he is successful in sufficiently reducing government spending, the bailout cost is covered.  Lehrer seemed to have a difficult time understanding that, although this may have been because the format essentially required him to address his question to both candidates.

Then there were the obvious mistakes on dealing with Russia, which he somehow turned into a discussion of energy independence, his inability to understand recognition of national sovereignty of nations such as Pakistan, and his lack of knowledge of the state of affairs along the Pakistan / Afghanistan border, where Senator McCain has visited, and which he understands well from the experience of a senior military officer.  When backed this far into the proverbial corner, Senator Obama did what many people sometimes do when they have no other option but surrender; he lied.  There were two respective instances where he did so, both relating to Iran.  First, with respect to his statement of intent to meet with the Iranian President with “no preconditions;” a statement made during the primaries.  He now stated that his original position was “no preparation.”  The record is clear, and any dictionary definition will easily show that “preparation” does not equal “precondition.”  Mr. Obama seems to think otherwise.  

The second point was more egregious.  Attempting to use the words of Henry Kissinger to support his position, even when Mr. McCain pointed out that he had known the former Secretary of State for 35 years was stupid.  His “ wait and see” response to  McCain's challenge was equally foolish, as it appeared to indicate that he had an ace up his sleeve.  As it turned out, McCain held all the aces on this one, as Dr. Kissinger issued a statement after the debate supporting McCain.  “My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”  Obama must have been counting on the main stream press not announcing that any refutation by Dr. Kissinger and expecting that his gaff would fall into the black hole of unverified information that the voters conveniently forget about.  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021625.php 

There was a third instance about which I have no information at this point.  It was a reference by Senator McCain to a statement from Admiral Mullen; presumably Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  ABC News is the only source I have seen as of this writing to deal with the issue and on the whole, it appears to support McCain's position.  Mullen did, in fact state that withdrawal of the troops within two years could be “very dangerous”.   Because Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan is within the two year window Admiral Mullen commented on, it appears that McCain was on target.  

Then there was the bracelet incident, which was created when Senator McCain told the story about how he was asked by the mother of an Iraq War soldier, killed in action, to wear the bracelet with her son's name on it.  Obama then had to chime it that he had one too.  This action appeared contrived, and we have no actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Obama's obtaining the bracelet.  It might have been set up for the purpose of grandstanding, or attempting to show “solidarity” with the troops, which is a common trait among modern liberals just before pulling the funding out from under them.  The story that I was able to uncover regarding Obama's bracelet appears to have been tainted by the attitude of a Cindy Sheehan type mother who holds the government responsible for her son's death.  In other words, she is willing to sell the national interest for her son's life, when her son, aware of the greater stake involved, willingly gave it.   

Those who think that this was a major victory for Obama are fooling themselves.  Senator McCain wears the bracelet as a symbol of his commitment to this soldier and all the others not having died in vain.  His references to it are not a stunt or grandstanding.  Senator Obama states that any soldier who does his duty does not die in vain, but fails to understand that a soldier who loses his life in a losing cause actually does so.  It would have been better for him not to fight because his death didn't change anything.  McCain understands this, but Obama does not.  Those who saw him as presidential in that moment don't understand what the military is for, or how to properly use it. 

For people such as John McCain the lives of soldiers are precious.  They should not be squandered.  For Senator Obama soldiers exist to protect him, his office and his personal power.  He will sacrifice them gladly and with no remorse.  He does not know what it is like to command soldiers in combat.  He cannot understand what it means to serve because his heart does not contain true patriotism.  He is one who, when confronted by danger, will look to save his own skin and possessions first.  The soldier looks to protect others.  It is this that an insurmountable gulf between the two candidates.   

If nothing else, this evening showed that Senator Obama is precisely what what Senator McCain and company have been saying throughout the campaign:  That he doesn't understand the situation; that he is unaware of the true facts; that he is inexperienced; that he not ready to lead.  The Senator from Illinois is quite obviously an naïve man who has been living in the world of the classroom and idealistic political theory.  Like other amateurs before him, he believes that potential antagonists around the world would be willing to give up their power hungry and avaricious ways if only the United States would be willing to give up protecting its own national interest.  He is wrong.  Some historians have suggested, Adolf Hitler wanted a war, and kept on pressing the issue until he got one.  Even if he didn't, his interest in establishing a “Greater Germany” was laid down before he became Chancellor and he kept pressing to acquire more and more territory until the British honored their commitment to Poland.  One account that I recently read stated that he was stumped by the British declaration of war.  He purportedly turned to Ribbentrop and asked “What now?”   Like Obama he believed that he could always have his own way.  When things go wrong for Obama, what will he do and who will he blame for the mistake?  We don't want to know.  

Senator Obama has not spent enough time in the real world of international affairs to understand how dangerous the world really is.  Those who thoroughly study history become aware of the danger very rapidly.  The United States faces danger because it is different from so many other nations, and because of its historic commitment to serve the greater good of the world and humanity.  When Obama understands that the world does not operate according to his personal whims or flawed understanding of human nature, then he will begin to understand, himself, why he is not qualified to be a Senator, let alone a President.   

UPDATE:  On Sunday, Sept. 28, 2008 this item turned up in the "Bracelet wars".   

Politics: General, Elections & Political Parties

Read more articles by Steven D. Laib