Senators in glass houses should not throw stones.
Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama has recently accused fellow nominee Sen. Hillary Clinton of being like President George W. Bush. Unfortunately for Sen. Obama, I would have to say that he bears a much stronger resemblance to our current president than any other Democratic nominee.
I am not, obviously, referring to physical appearances. Sen. Obama’s smooth smile is a far cry from Bush’s crooked grin. Instead, I am speaking of their political backgrounds while campaigning for the White House.
The first similarity that jumps out is the vagueness of their messages. Bush’s famous promise to be a “uniter, not a divider” was as crowd-pleasing as it was meaningless. Sen. Obama’s “change” theme has likewise become a placating crutch, allowing him to avoid specifying what exactly he plans on changing and how.
A visit to his Web site, however, reveals a long list of plans. Of particular note to students, his site states that Sen. Obama will make the first $4,000 of college free for “most families” and pay for two-thirds of tuition at public colleges or universities.
Perhaps the reason why Sen. Obama does not frequently mention these ideas during his speeches is because they would lead to questions.
Which families, exactly? Can we afford this? And ultimately, so what?
At least at the University of California, our tuition is fully subsidized ““ it’s the fees, which have increased by 79 percent since the 2002-2003 academic year, that drive us students into debt.
Another quality shared by these two political figures is their lack of foreign policy experience. Just like Bush during his 2000 presidential bid, Sen. Obama has never dealt with foreign leaders.
In an attempt to compensate, Sen. Obama has tried two tactics. The first involves bold assertions about how he would lay down the law to foreign leaders like the president of Iran, dictating what is and is not “acceptable.” It’s a statement reminiscent of Bush’s “bring “˜em on” administration.
The senator’s second tactic is claiming that having a grandmother who lives in Africa and residing in Indonesia from the ages of 6 to 10 counts as foreign policy experience.
This is great news for my political career. I myself have a grandmother from Portugal and I lived in Germany for about two months, so feel free to write my name on your ballots in November.
Many of Obama’s supporters liken him to John F. Kennedy, who was also a young charismatic senator and was elected despite possessing no foreign policy experience.
Yet Kennedy’s short presidency was not as glamorous as we would like to pretend ““ his earnest naivete led to the Bay of Pigs debacle, an embarrassing failed attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba.
Finally, as President Bush has done, the senator depends heavily on likability. Who can forget the much-publicized poll in 2004 that more Americans would rather have a beer with Bush than his opponent?
While reading about Obama in the news, the most common word that appears in articles about him, aside from his name, is “rhetoric.” He is admired for his ability to articulate himself, construct moving metaphors and verbally paint idyllic pictures. Perhaps this is the reason he participates in less than a quarter of the Senate’s votes, as CNN.com has reported. It allows him, as he has done in the past, to criticize other candidates for voting “yes” on resolutions he never voted against. It frees him from criticism of his record, since it seems he is careful not to establish one.
Of course, there are also glaring differences between the two. Bush had prior experience holding executive office as the governor of Texas prior to running for president and, therefore, he had a long record as a staunch conservative. Sen. Obama is far more articulate and willing to admit his mistakes.
I do find it peculiar, however, that the Democrats have so openly embraced Sen. Obama without pausing to consider what he has in common with a president they revile and what that could possibly mean if he wins the party’s nomination: a presidential victory ruined by an error-filled term.
Though I would favor Sen. Obama over any Republican nominee, I would like the Democrats to consider that there is more to the 2008 presidential election than simply getting one of their own into office. They might want to focus on picking someone competent ““ any of the other candidates ““ as well.
If you want to ask questions about the old country, send them to kstrickland@media.ucla.edu.Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.