In an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, Barack Obama points out what a leader is supposed to do: leaders are not meant to understand every single detail of every single issue, they’re supposed to hire and lead a team of experts that know better than him. Crooks and Liars has a link to an interesting discussion of the candidate’s language, and how it relates to how they view their roll in the White House.
My personal feeling – and this probably lends itself to my support for Barack Obama more than anything – is that we need a leader with a vision, not a micro-manager with a clipboard. Despite my obvious differences with Hillary Clinton, I respect her encyclopedic knowledge of the issues. And while I suspect her ego would forbid it, I think she’d make a great vice president or close ally to the White House in the Senate. But in the White House, I suspect she would be like the squelching boss I’ve always hated working for: constantly overseeing every little issue while totally losing sight of the big picture.
I don’t doubt but that Clinton would hire a team of advisers to die for. But I think Barack Obama could hire the same team and get better results. Just a gut feeling based on personal experience.
I agree, leaders don’t need to know every detail, they need to set direction and see the big picture.
Yet Obama has frequently opened his mouth and wound up saying things about the big picture I don’t want to hear, in particular, things that make him sound like a Rethuglican. He talks of a social security crisis, he speaks positively of Ronald Reagan, unions are “special interests” and on and on. I don’t care about the details … the big picture Obama espouses is just plain wrong. John Edwards for President.
I’m sorry, but I just think there are so many on the left that want to read between every line and demand that Obama not be qualified. Over and over again, because he doesn’t toe the lefty line or because he uses some little bit of language that you insist proves he’s a Republican drone, you people freak out about him. I think Rottenchester said it best: liberals who have consistenly been beaten over the head for making subtle points are now jumping all over a liberal candidate for making a subtle point. It’s pathetic.
Now you’re all freaking out because he would dare to point out anything about Reagan at all other than that he was in fact the devil incarnate. He did not praise Reagan, nor did he make any claim about whether Reagan was a good president or not. All he said was that Reagan represented something to people that they wanted, irrespective of whether he delivered.
I just don’t think some people know how to be happy anymore.