Is Obama Naive?
Or is it the audacity of hope?
Even as Obama has drawn virtually even with Hillary Clinton in some early-state polls, he still faces doubts from would-be supporters on whether he can deliver on his vision.
In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Iowa Democrats regarded Clinton as the stronger leader, by 36% to 28%, and the more experienced, by 45% to 9%. But 56% valued a new direction and new ideas even more.
“Change” vs. “experience.” That’s what we’re looking at. Of course they’re both just marketing messages because neither person claiming those things can actually prove that they have either.
Sure, Obama talks change, but can he really do it?
Sure, Hillary says she has experience, but a lot of people are calling BS on the idea that her time as First Lady counts.
Here’s how one voter challenged Obama on his idea of changing the dialogue:
Challenging Obama face-to-face last week, [Stan] Potratz said, “You can talk better than the other people. [But] there’s a certain unreality about listening to you.”
“I don’t think those Republicans are going to roll over and play dead,” continued Potratz, who sells sheep-farming supplies. “You can be nice to them, but is that going to work?”
The first-term senator assured Potratz he’s not naive. Obama said he’s accustomed to Chicago’s rough-and-tumble politics. He said he knows how to stand his ground, but would invite Republicans and independents into the fold.
“What I know is you don’t start out by making enemies, you start out by looking for allies. And, then, if you find enemies, you knock ’em down,” Obama said. “That’s part of how I want to break the gridlock.”
After 16 years of bloody partisan warfare, it’s courageous to suggest that a simple change in rhetoric can bring about change, but that doesn’t mean it’ll happen. Because that’s the thing about audacity…it works both ways and just being brave isn’t always enough.