Question

I watched Obama give a presentation in front of the Pennsylvania State House this evening. I didn't even try to attend; after hearing about the size of the crowd in Philadelphia, and at other places, I figured it'd be pretty manic there, and it was. I can't estimate the size, but it was a lot. The street where the platform was set up is fairly narrow, so there would not have been a lot of room to move around -- once you're there, you're there. For the duration, and then some.

As I listened to his speech -- and I've heard enough of his to recognize his recurring themes -- I was noting, casually, when what he would say sounded a lot like what Hillary Clinton would say. The problems that needed to be addressed; the situations that needed to be resolved. I remembered what Harry Truman said about Dwight Eisenhower, who had been Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe in World War Two. Truman said that Eisenhower's experience as a general would be a problem for him when he became President, as he would sit there and say do this, do that -- and nothing would happen, because that's not how the Presidency works. It has intrinsic power, but much of what it can do, it does through the manipulation of people, getting the Congress to do what he wants them to do. I also thought of the observation that I've heard, to the effect that Obama represents a desire to improve the way we do politics, while Clinton represents a desire to be very good at politics as we do them, and it occurred to me that Obama, if elected, might well be in the same position as Eisenhower. He might want to change the way business is conducted, and certainly he would be able to effectuate some, perhaps a great deal, under his own authority. But unless the people in the political environment change the way they do business, much of what he says he wants to change -- the way we do politics -- won't change. He might be forced to deal with people on the terms that they demand, even if those terms are contrary to his desires and his promises. He can't change politics by himself. If he tries -- and I believe he would try -- he might become a Jimmy Carter, whose micromanagement style burned him out and ultimately made him ineffectual.

And if he can't do that, can't be completely successful in doing that -- why vote for him rather than someone who says that she wants to do substantially the same things, and is comfortable dealing in that environment?