Why does Obama think he is Abraham Lincoln?: "On Inauguration Day, not only will President-elect Obama be sworn in using the Bible that was used to swear in President Abraham Lincoln, he will dine like Lincoln as well.
The luncheon that will be served in Congress's Statuary Hall to the president-elect and vice president-elect and their families -- as well as congressional leaders, justices of the Supreme Court and pending members of the Obama Cabinet -- will be modeled after foods that Lincoln ate and enjoyed.
The first course will even be served on replicas of the china picked out by then-first lady Mary Todd Lincoln at the beginning of her husband's term in office."
--------------------
I notice Obama left out the oysters and substituted scallops, shrimp, and lobster. That doesn't cut it. You can add in as many kinds of "seafood" as you like, but the bottom line is, if you want to be Lincoln II, you have to eat the oysters with gusto.
I happen to love oysters, but I don't think I'm Abraham Lincoln and I don't want to be President.
7 comments:
I believe if you read "The team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin you will see the parallels.
Both Presidents face/faced a country divided by ideology and forces that tore the nation apart. Both Presidents tried/are trying to build a united country in order for it to survive. Both Presidents put a cabinet to together that included their campaign competitors, Republican and Democrat.
Thanks, George. I have heard those alleged similarites, because Obama's spin doctors have been shoving this line down people's throats. I suppose this "Obama=Lincoln" trope is another David Axelrod creation.
My question was actually rhetorical. I have been living in Illinois since 1994 and I teach political science, so I have been watching Obama for quite some time.
Obama hasn't even taken the oath yet. He has accomplished nothing of note anywhere--in Illinois or Washington--except getting elected to a series of offices against weak opponents, because Obama played hardball and knocked the strong ones off the ballot. Now he brazenly equates himself with a truly great President.
I hope he turns out to be that, but I don't see the signs.
This country is nowhere near as divided as it was in 1861--not remotely. People were killing each other in the territories over the slavery issue. But, as divided as we are, the idea that Obama is committed to unifying us is, so far, pure spin. Obama acts like a typical liberal Democrat. He played the race card repeatedly during the primary and general election cycles, bashed Republicans, and was extremely partisan. (Nothing wrong with that, but he certainly didn't play the uniter--McCain did more of that, and he lost.)
Lincoln cared about ordinary people because he was one. Obama displayed open contempt for rural and small town (white) voters in an unguarded moment when he was raising money in San Francisco.
Stocking his administration with Democrats of various stripes hardly counts as unifying the nation. Leaving Gates at SecDef is simple pragmatism because we are in the middle of a war---plus if it goes badly Gates, not Obama, will get the blame. Gates is a nonpartisan bureaucrat anyway. And the problem for Obama is that he has no organization to bring with him to Washington, so he has to recruit Clintonistas--he doesn't have anybody with national experience to take with him. He is a rookie.
But wait until he gets his legs under him. I think he will consolidate his power and pursue some extremely divisive domestic social issues. I hope I am wrong about this, but I think the "unifier" line is just public relations.
The other differences are striking. Lincoln was an American patriot--a committed nationalist who was dedicated to the survival of the USA. He also came from nothing and made himself an educated and erudite man.
Obama seems to see himself as a citizen of the world. He has always been highly critical of the US. He has throughout his life surrounded himself with the harshest critics of this country that he could find. And he had a relatively privileged background. His mother was an anthropologist and Obama was educated in some excellent schools, where he acquired a fashionable disdain for the suburban middle class.
Lincoln was an unselfish, dedicated public servant who risked and ultimately gave his life for his country. He took courageous stands on slavery and national unity, and launched the Republican Party.
Obama has so far been an astute, risk-averse, political ladder-climber who, literally, has no major accomplishments. He never rocked the boat at all as he rose up to the top of the stinking sewer that is Illinois politics. He played manipulative games to knock his main opponents off the ballot in getting to the Illinois Senate and the US Senate. He even broke his promise to accept public financing of his presidential campaign, so he could greatly outspend McCain.
Lincoln was a homely man with a high-pitched speaking voice who had great ideas. He was all substance, no style. Obama is, so far, all style and little substance. He is a fantastic speaker who does a great job of delivering speeches that are long on emotions and short on ideas.
And most importantly, Lincoln was a humble man. He led an unhappy life of sacrifice and suffering and carried the weight of the nation on his shoulders. Obama is, obviously, a person who thinks very highly of himself. He is self-satisfied and happy as a clam at high tide. He has even been hitting the gym for at least 90 minutes per day every single day since the election. Given our current national circumstances, I think Lincoln would have found some more productive use for his pre-inauguration weeks.
Maybe on January 20, Obama will morph into a great American statesman. I hope so--I really do. This country needs a great president now, and I hope Obama is it. He is highly intelligent, adaptive, charismatic, and possessed of great political skills.
But so far he hasn't shown himself to be worthy of carrying Lincoln's briefcase.
I really really hope that Obama turns out to be a great president, because we need one. But I do agree the Lincoln thing is WAY overemphasized. If I were to list the ways in which I hope future presidents would model themselves after Lincoln, the food choices would not be high on my list.
Evan, but Lincoln was wrong. Where does it say in the Constitution that the contract between the states is irrevocable?
However, it does say in the Decl. of Indep. that "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security."
Lincoln's action is like those 25 -30 year CC&R restrictions on HOA termination. Don't you think so?
Peace!
George:
No. Lincoln was right. The Declaration of Independence didn't frame the powers of the national government or the relationship between the states and the national government. That's what the Constitution is for. The claimed right of secession was based on the South's "compact theory" of the Constitution--that it was supposedly an agreement between the states to set up the national government. It wasn't. It was a social contract among the people. There is no right of secession and never was.
So what if Obama works out 90 minutes each day at the gym. I frankly hope he continues to do so as president if time allows. It will keep him vital and sharp and he'll need to be to deal with the challenges of his position.
Bravo Evan! Our rookie President is indeed an eloquent speaker, which we sorely need from our leadership. However, after quickly signing for $1.2 trillion (to be paid by my children and their children) I have great fear that our worshipped leader will waste no time in building the largest government the world has ever seen, leaving us to pay that tab as well (and then he'll give us health care for all, yipee!).
Ken Kraft
Post a Comment