Carter and Obama? Let's see....

The Daily News Record this morning presents a commentary on David Broder's recent comparison of the Obama and Carter campaigns. The original column appears in today's WAPO under the title of "Hamilton Jordan's Message to Obama." I guess because the DNR editor considers Mr. Broder to be "the dean of the old-school scribes who combines shoe-leather journalism with political analysis," and therefore a liberal, the new headline "Obama's run like Carter's..but the candidates differ greatly" appears over Broder's name.

The editor seems to be making only three points; that military service, being the governor of a state, and having run a business qualified Jimmy Carter for the presidency. The editor goes on to point out the contrast with Senator Obama.

"By contrast, Mr. Obama is a Chicago liberal.."

This is a good thing. I'd spell that LIBERAL! I call it good news because the conservative agenda we've followed for 16 years has gotten us in a pretty big jam. I'd say it is time to become "open to new behavior and opinions" and to discard the traditional conservative values that have caused America so much grief. Yes, LIBERAL is a good thing.

Jimmy Carter was a Southern Liberal which is pretty stunning when you think about it. Of course this whole article is a sly attempt to smear Obama by linking him with President Carter.

"with no military experience.."

This is also a good thing. Contrary to what the editors believe, service in the military is NOT a prerequisite for government service. In fact, the founders specifically gave the President the power of "commander-in-chief" as a CIVILIAN, expressly to keep the military from growing too powerful.

Mr. Carter's belief that the military is NOT the primary source of bringing peace to the world pretty much negates the argument that military service is required.

"and no experience managing anything beyond the activist whippersnappers in his Senate office and the hipsters on his campaign.."

The writer conveniently ignores the most highly organized, effective political campaign in recent history. Contrast this to the organizational disasters of the Clinton and McCain campaigns and Obama's competence in governance is obvious. National political campaigns, how they are organized are indeed an indicator of effective management. (comment: whippersnappers? hipsters? Showing your cards a little are you?...you old fuddyduddy..)

"which does not compare to shouldering gubernatorial duties."

Could this be one of those famous "gaffes" that political junkies and chatterboxes love to point out so they can ridicule the "gaffer?" Of course the editor is referring to Jimmy Carter's run as Governor of Georgia, but... I choose not to poke fun, but only to say that being a US Senator certainly does not compare to being a governor and that being a governor doesn't really indicate competence in governance. Some governors have shown competence (Carter), some haven't (Bush).

"Being a "community organizer" isn't exactly a command experience, either."

Command experience? No. Organization? Yes. Management? Yes. Building a better community, working to improve the lives of citizens, helping people, boosting employment, education and housing? Yes. All of the above are common to Mr. Carter and Mr. Obama... Your point? Oh yeah.... it's the military code word, "command experience..." Nope. See the previous comment.

"And again, he has past associations with vituperative and violent anti-American radicals, one being his unhinged "minister" and the other being a fan of mass murderer Charles Manson."

This statement is vile, stupid, and obscene. To exaggerate so wildly and pronounce it so publicly is truly a sad commentary on the sorry state of this editorial page. Mr Editor/wing-nut blogger, this is shameful, inflammatory, and totally unnecessary to your point. To abuse the readers of this paper with this type of vitriolic, hypocritical, partisan rhetoric is unprofessional and incompetent. A retraction would be appropriate.