Obama is the Tiger Woods of Politics
Last week, shortly after President Obama was announced to be the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner I was inclined to make this week’s post the focus of this development. I was especially motivated to do this when the brouhaha came forth from the president’s many critics who felt he was not deserving of the award. The rationale was that peace, as of yet, has not come about as a result of his adiminstration’s foreign policies.
That’s a valid point, to be sure. The only flaw with it is that Obama, as with the other two sitting presidents who were awarded the prize—Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson—also did not actually have tangible evidence of lasting peace from their actions. Rather, like Obama, they were recognized by the global community as being tireless workers for peace in their time. And given the other day-to-day challenges a president faces, it takes one of exceptional commitment to the concept of peace to make inroads in this area.
But that is the entry I would have written had I not also been intersected by critical developments occurring in the health reform debate. It appears that, despite the partisan bickering, there will be a health reform bill coming forth by year’s end.
Also, economists are now all pretty much in agreement that the worldwide recession has come to an end.
So I think what needs to be said most about President Obama is that he really does appear to be the man for the job. Irrespective of his skin color, he is someone whose gift is leadership and public policy management. He is the Tiger Woods of politics. And like the president, Tiger Woods had his share of critics and naysayers—that is until people (and particularly potential sponsors in the corporate world) realized the golfer was a true prodigy. Everyone is good at something, and some people are really, really good at something. Tiger Woods fits this bill in golfing and Barak Obama fits this bill in politics and public policy.
Perhaps what the president’s critics need to figure out is how to benefit from his brilliance instead of standing in the way of it.
That’s a valid point, to be sure. The only flaw with it is that Obama, as with the other two sitting presidents who were awarded the prize—Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson—also did not actually have tangible evidence of lasting peace from their actions. Rather, like Obama, they were recognized by the global community as being tireless workers for peace in their time. And given the other day-to-day challenges a president faces, it takes one of exceptional commitment to the concept of peace to make inroads in this area.
But that is the entry I would have written had I not also been intersected by critical developments occurring in the health reform debate. It appears that, despite the partisan bickering, there will be a health reform bill coming forth by year’s end.
Also, economists are now all pretty much in agreement that the worldwide recession has come to an end.
So I think what needs to be said most about President Obama is that he really does appear to be the man for the job. Irrespective of his skin color, he is someone whose gift is leadership and public policy management. He is the Tiger Woods of politics. And like the president, Tiger Woods had his share of critics and naysayers—that is until people (and particularly potential sponsors in the corporate world) realized the golfer was a true prodigy. Everyone is good at something, and some people are really, really good at something. Tiger Woods fits this bill in golfing and Barak Obama fits this bill in politics and public policy.
Perhaps what the president’s critics need to figure out is how to benefit from his brilliance instead of standing in the way of it.
posted by Robert McTyre Sr. at 6:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home