Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

Eric Zorn
Published December 19, 2006

It's hard to tell who's shrieking louder these days: Those who are insisting that Barack Obama is a political blank slate and nobody knows what he stands for, or those who are insisting that the track record of Illinois' junior Democratic senator shows he's a hard-core, wild-eyed liberal.
It's hard to tell because both sides are being drowned out by the indignant snorts of those who say that Obama lacks the "experience" to be a presidential contender, along with the polite interjections from those who demand to know just what Obama has done in his public life to justify the broad enthusiasm for his prospective entry into the Democratic primary field for 2008.
All I hear amid the noise is the thrum of resentment and fear:
Resentment that he's not playing by the old rules--that he hasn't acquired his political capital by spending years swapping favors and grandstanding in lesser offices or by climbing the coattails of his politically powerful father.
And fear that he's going to be a hell of a good candidate--brilliant, telegenic, immensely likable and on the popular (negative) side of the war in Iraq from the git-go.
Not to say that he'll be a perfect candidate.
The skeptics, the condescending, self-congratulatory promoters of the so-called "Baracklash" against the hype (another Newsweek cover photo this week, golly!), are fond of insinuating that those who think Obama should run for president are naive idealists drunk on the idea that the man can do and has done no wrong.
Every political movement has the hypnotized true believers, of course. And at this point Obama seems to have more than his share. But there are many realists in the ranks. And they know that, while Obama has his faults and has made some dumb moves in his career (land deal with a sleazebag, golly again!), the frenzied hand-waving over his prospective candidacy today is merely the objections of those who protest too much.
Obama says he will announce in the coming weeks his decision on whether to run.
The blank-slate argument: Obama's somewhat wonky new book, his speeches and his voting record in the Illinois Senate and U.S. Senate reveal plenty about his political philosophy.
The too-liberal argument: Those who realize that Obama, does, in fact, have a record to examine fret instead that he's way off to the left. It depends on one's perspective, of course, but he's reached out in several speeches to the Christian evangelical community, supported the 700-mile fence along the Mexican border and voted against Sen. John Kerry's proposed timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq.
To take another example, his voting record has earned him an American Civil Liberties Union approval "score" of 83 percent, same as Sen. Hillary Clinton and Kerry and lower than the score of 11 other Senate Democrats.
The no-experience argument: I'm fond of the gotcha point out there that a certain other lanky, big-eared former Illinois legislator with just two years in Washington was mocked for his lack of experience when he ran for president in 1860, and he turned out to be an OK chief executive.
But one doesn't have to see Obama as the reincarnation of Abe Lincoln to realize first that experience--the length of one's resume--is not necessarily a predictor of success in the Oval Office; second, that no experience as a mayor, governor or legislator can really prepare a person to be the leader of the free world; and third, related to the first two, that the ability to inspire, to lead, to listen and to deliberate is a personality trait, not a skill one learns in the political trenches.
The no-accomplishment argument: Obama has served in the minority party in the U.S. Senate for two years--not a position with much leverage. Still, he managed to get his name on sunshine legislation to track and search government spending online, action to send additional humanitarian relief to the Congo and a nuclear-threat reduction program. He's also promoted the interests of military veterans.
But look, this is not a brief for Obama. It's a suggestion that the cynics as well as the supporters pipe down, take a breath and judge him by the same standards by which we have always judged prospective candidates.
Don't believe the noise or the hype. Examine his record and his experience for yourself--just don't pretend he doesn't have them.



chicagotribune.com




The problem with this piece is that Zorn pretty much does what he accuses Obama's critics of doing: arguing from inconsistent positions.

In the first place, Zorn tells us that Obama has a record. In the next instance he insists that Obama's lack of record is nothing to worry about because Lincoln lacked experience too.


In addition, a good columnist will at least pay lip service to the other side, and try to explain why the other side is wrong. A good columnist will, also, acknowledge potential flaws in his or her argument and try to explain why those flaws aren't fatal. However, rather than consider the criticisms and respond to them intelligently, Zorn accuses Obama's critics of "fear" and "resentment." In essence, all he did was pull out a few buzzwords (at least he was able to refrain from calling the critics "racist Islamophobes") and assume that labeling equaled logic.

Its always a little off putting when any reporter, even in "columnist" mode gets this excited over a politician. It shows that the reporter is a little too willing to throw away objective analysis for bias.