I really like Licia Corbella. And I’m not going to stop liking her. But I heartily disagree with this column, slamming McCain mainly because of his choice of Palin for running mate.
It is more than that, though, she likes Obama’s rhetoric:
But it’s not just McCain’s negatives that lead to an endorsement of Obama. If the pen really is mightier than the sword, then how and what a leader says is of great importance in a world filled with bloodthirsty, warmongering men. Obama’s pen isn’t just mightier than a sword, it is a howitzer to the heart.
Critics of Obama keep saying his words are indeed beautifully delivered, but when they are dissected, they don’t say much. What is it, I am asked, besides his words that makes me think he deserves to hold the most trying and important public office in the world? Well, what else does any other politician offer, but words? Problems and ideas have to be articulated before they can be solved or brought to life.
So when it comes right down to it, Licia likes Obama’s proposed policies, as much as she dislikes Palin. Which makes her reason for hoping Obama wins twofold, actually. Is it really about Palin, or just support for Obama? Which would be fine, if still surprising to me, from her.
Rebecca adds: I just don’t understand the dislike so many conservatives seem to feel for Palin. She’s not highly polished, nor at the very top of her game in foreign policy, but until two months ago it wasn’t her job to be – she’d probably be remiss as governor of Alaska if she’d spent her time studying counterinsurgency and guerilla warfare and diplomacy. If she’d been grooming herself for the job for decades she’d know it, but I see it as a plus that she hasn’t been.
She’s 44, has 5 kids, is a governor, seems to have a happy marriage, lives her values, and has an approval rating of 80% in Alaska, which is always impressive, I don’t care how small the state is. (Not many Canadian premiers are that popular.) Why aren’t more people, but especially women, admiring of that, even if they don’t agree with her completely on policy?
Andrea found another naysayer: Mark Milke writes here about all the bad choices, but starts with Palin, this also at the Calgary Herald. I like his concluding assessment, however, because lets face it, love her or hate her, Palin ain’t running for President. So Milke rightly concludes with an assessment of Obama:
Similar to Carter, Obama thinks differences between nations are often about misunderstandings. The remedy for that is communication. But the divide between nations is more often about differences in real interests. Such interests can occasionally be bridged (Carter, in one of his rare successes, brokered the Israeli-Egypt peace accord) but not without first recognizing what is at the core of disputes.
This is why French president Nicholas Sarkozsky has been privately critical of Obama on . The Israelis leaked Sarkozsky’s musings and they’re not positive: the French president apparently views the Democratic candidate’s stance on Iran as “utterly immature” and sees Obama’s rhetoric as “empty of all content.” Sarkozsky is worried that once in power, Obama might break the united front on Iran which now exists among the UN’s five Security Council members by starting an Iran-America dialogue without preconditions.
If Obama believes international differences are more ephemeral than real, then he and the world are in for a rude shock when the realities of different interests are again made obvious. The Democratic Party’s protectionist bent combined with Obama’s foreign affairs naïveté has ramifications for Canada, and for the current sweet hope many Canadians have for the Obama presidency.
The few words I bolded remain my gravest concern about Barack Obama–yes, on par with his views on life. Because you can’t resolve global problems if you don’t understand what they are. That’s where hypocrisy has taken hold, largely in the media. Because a woman who is not running for President is being torn to shreds for a naivete that will in two days be the norm in the White House.
Rebecca adds: Mr. Crittenden chimes in, and largely gets it right:
As readers of this space know, I have been very critical of the selection of Sarah Palin. Yet I do not regard her as a reason to cast aside the principles of my life on voting day. She may not bring much knowledge to this ticket. Yet she is obviously no fool. Indeed, using the favored metric of Joe Biden (”I think I have a higher IQ than you”), my guess is that she would probably outscore the Democratic vice presidential candidate on a standardized aptitude test. To his credit, Biden has conscientiously worked to familiarize himself with the great questions of national policy. To her discredit, Palin has not. But on Tuesday, I will trust that she can learn. She has governed a state – and she did risk her career by defying the corrupt leaders of the Alaska Republican party.”
Andrea chortles: “Mr. Crittenden.” Good one. (Readers should be aware if they aren’t already that David Frum and Danielle Crittenden are married.)