Change We Can Believe In?
By Larry Johnson on June 5, 2008 at 10:03 AM in Barack Obama, Chicago politics, Current Affairs, Democrats, Jimmy Carter, John McCain
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why Barack Obama represents “change” and “hope” for a new future. The White House is currently occupied by an inexperienced man–a nice man–of limited accomplishment who used cocaine as a young adult. And the best answer the Democrats now offer is an inexperienced man who used cocaine as a young adult? That is change?
There is no denying that Barack gives a better speech than Bush. But running a snappy, happy campaign is different than the task of governing. Figuring out who should be the lead Federal agency for dealing with terrorism is not the same as rallying folks to attend a caucus. If that was the case then I would jump on the Barack bandwagon. Let’s face the facts–Barack is Jimmy Carter but not as smart.
Like Carter, Barack offers hope. But here he diverges.
Carter was at least a details guy. He was a nuclear engineer–couldn’t pronounce it properly (nooklear)–and lover of details. Not Barack. He hates details. He’s still trying to figure out how many states there are. And he certainly does not understand the basics of the Federal bureaucracy. I doubt if he can explain the difference between the FBI, Homeland Security, and ATF. For example, if a car bomb goes off in the Holland Tunnel, who is in charge of the investigation? (See the end of this post for the answer.)
He is used to doing business the Chicago way–pay for play. Patronage works well at the local level and keeps folks moving and keeps you in office. Well guess what? Patronage works on the Federal level but it is called lobbying. But Barack has now declared he won’t use lobbyists or allow lobbyists to work (even though he has them in his campaign and uses them to raise money).
As I survey the choice between Barack and McCain it is like being asked to choose between amputating your leg or your arm. Not a great choice either way. Barack is unlikely to subject us to the lunacy of the neocons. That’s the good news. The bad news is that he is surrounded by security advisors–Lake and Rice in particular–who have a record of fiddling while Rome burns. Those two were the principle architects of Clinton’s non-response to the genocide in Rwanda.
So as the campaign moves forward count me in neither camp. I will acknowledge wisdom and grace exhibited by either candidate. And I will also mercilessly pillory their nuttiness. I suspect we will be doing more of the latter than the former.
Now the answer to the question above–it depends. Port Authority would have the initial lead. FBI and ATF would try to insert themselves and get control. Bottomline, the coordination process is still a mess.
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
