Seuffert swings … and misses

I’m not sure what is most offensive about Virginia Seuffert’s column “Why Obama shouldn’t be president” [Viewpoints, Aug. 6]. Is it the blanket assumption that just because Oak Parkers support Obama in record numbers that we aren’t making an informed choice? Or is it the lack of any substantive analysis of Obama’s platform positions? Either way, it led me to contemplate “Why Seuffert shouldn’t be a columnist.”

First, Seuffert’s derisive tone sets the stage for a column completely lacking in respect for Oak Park residents. Just because someone puts up a yard sign-or puts a T-shirt on their child-in support of a candidate does not mean they are ignorant of the issues. Slogans just happen to be more effective on bumper stickers and signs than extensive policy analysis. Maybe Seuffert has a suggestion for fitting a 15-page policy outline on a T-shirt, but I digress.

Have Oak Park residents really given “scant consideration to any opposition?” I think many of us have given it a lot of consideration. It doesn’t seem to have crossed Seuffert’s mind that we considered the opposition-and rejected them.

Second, Seuffert falls victim to the very same superficial analysis she’s claiming of Oak Park Obama supporters. Does she offer any detailed criticisms of Obama’s positions? No. She posits that we shouldn’t support candidates just because they look good or have photogenic families. To quote some neighborhood teenagers, “Duh.”

While I am sure there are Obama supporters who are merely supporting him because he’s black, I’m equally certain there are people supporting McCain just because he’s white. So what? I don’t think either view represents the majority of either party. And my experience with politically active Oak Park residents is that they actually care about the issues and apparently do more research than Seuffert.

Third, let’s look at Seuffert’s stab at research on the issues. Never mind that “liberal” is not a four-letter word. She brands Obama as an “ultra-liberal” with the fervor of Joseph McCarthy, without seeming to recognize that perhaps, just perhaps, people actually support his “ultra-liberal” views. It might be that what Seuffert thinks is “ultra-liberal” is actually closer to the center than she might want to believe. In fact, her only cited source is the National Journal’s proclamation of Obama being the “most liberal senator,” a notion which has been widely criticized. A quick Google search can turn up several examples of the flaws in the National Journal’s methodology. For just one example of how bogus their moniker of “Most Liberal” is, in fact, check out Time magazine. (See http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/what_the_national_journal_libe.html).

Seuffert finally gets to what is supposed to be the crux of her argument: that Obama lacks experience. It’s true that he has not served in the Senate as long as his opponent. But Seuffert never gives us any concrete reasons why that matters. Neither of the candidates has real, solid, extensive foreign policy experience. Seuffert lambasts Obama for striking a Kennedyesque pose in Berlin, but I don’t see his opponent drawing crowds of 200,000 supporters in a foreign country. I think that speaks volumes-not about his foreign policy experience, but certainly about his ability to reach and work with foreign leaders.

The bottom line is there is little to no evidence that a stint in the Senate-short or long-is a good proxy for judging the experience or worth of a presidential candidate. As august a body as the Senate may be, the skills of a senator are not necessarily those of a chief executive, a critique which cuts against both candidates.

What disturbs me most about Seuffert’s column is not that she feels Obama is inexperienced. She’s entitled to feel that way and vote accordingly. The disturbing fact is that she’s trying to persuade readers that Obama’s lack of experience is the key issue, but devotes 80 percent of her column essentially calling Obama supporters ignorant, branding him “ultra-liberal,” blasting his “photo ops” but then offering no concrete examples of why his lack of experience will matter, or how his policies reflect inexperience.

Apparently, there are two more columns coming from Seuffert giving her the opportunity to explain her position in more detail-or rather, any detail, because there wasn’t any in this effort.

I’m calling this “Strike One.” And you can put that on a T-shirt.