Mayor Versus Community Organizer

So much has been made about Governor Palin's jib at Obama's experience that I thought I would take a few moments to address it. Just for the record, she said the following in her acceptance speech:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

I have a few questions about the left's reaction to the statement:

First, what is wrong with it? As a mayor you do have stated, defined responsibilities in your city charter. You have a constituency that put you there, people have real needs that they expect you as the figurehead of local government to do something about their problems, keep the city safe, etc. What about a community organizer? Obama doesn't really tell us much about it other than the fact that he was one. What he does tell us is the following:

Despite some meaningful victories, the work of Obama--and hundreds of other organizers--did not transform the South Side or restore lost industries. But it did change the young man who became the junior senator from Illinois in 2004, and it provides clues to his worldview as he bids for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"I can't say we didn't make mistakes, that I knew what I was doing," Obama recalled three years ago to a boisterous convention of the still-active DCP. "Sometimes I called a meeting, and nobody showed up. Sometimes preachers said, 'Why should I listen to you?' Sometimes we tried to hold politicians accountable, and they didn't show up. I couldn't tell whether I got more out of it than this neighborhood."

This quote can be found in an Obama-friendly article from The Nation. Not much else seems to be found out about his community organizer works other than the fact that Obama comes from the Saul Alinksky school of community and labor organization. If you have read his "Rules For Radicals" book and have any knowledge of how community organizers often (though admittedly not always) worked you wouldn't find much to quibble with over Giuliani's statement either.

Being a community organizer is nothing to be ashamed of and rallying people to a common cause and purpose can be a great thing to accomplish in one's life, but I still don't understand why people were upset at Palin's comparison.

Second, the Democrats seems to say that McCain's call for people to community service as a contradiction to what they heard from Palin and Giuliani. Well, if you are honest and look at the list of things McCain said about becoming involved in your community (be a teacher, a fireman, a minister, a nurse or doctor, etc) there are differences. Just stop and think about what a community organizer does and what the duties (often defined and measured) of those jobs are. They are not gender specific, they are not race specific, they are not politically inclined, they are hired often for defined skill sets, they have to meet goals and requirements (usually). How does that compare with the activities of a "community organizer"? And let us not overlook the fact that Palin herself can be considered a "community organizer" as she was head of the local PTA. I haven't heard much of that time from her, but I wonder if her activities as a "community organizer" were more successful that Obama's self-admitted mixed record was, which leads me to my next question...

Third, OK, so she was the mayor of a small town and he was a "community organizer". I don't really care so much as to what they did but more interested in who was effective at doing their job. Obama's own words in the Nation article seem to indicate mixed results at best and we don't have any firm details on what he accomplished. Even the New York Times (in a mixed review of Palin's Mayoral tenure) stated:

In Wasilla, Ms. Palin is widely praised for following through on campaign promises by cutting property taxes while improving roads and sewers and strengthening the Police Department... She is largely viewed as having had her hometown’s best interests at heart when she pursued big projects or an overhaul of city taxes. By the time she ran for re-election in 1999 — again facing Mr. Stein — things had smoothed out. She was returned to office by a large margin, 826 votes to 255.

Granted there were headaches, many of them caused by the fact that she ran against the "old boys'" network and some of the due to her heartfelt conservatism and even a few I would question, but overall she seemed to accomplish what she set out to do and the overall view of her in her town seems to be quite positive.

So again I don't understand the problem, but even Obama seems to take this as a thorn in his side. In a recent interview with Anderson Cooper Obama still seems to consider her only experience as that of a mayor:

“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” Obama responded.

What is missing in this response is that Cooper asked about her experience as Governor of Alaska and mayor of Wasilla. I find it rather interesting that Obama ignores her being governor. He mentions bills he sponsored for New Orleans post-Katrina but if you search the actual record you find two he sponsored, four he co-sponsored with about a 50% success rate of passing. Not the greatest of accomplishments but he can be credited with trying, but for someone who claims the ability to work in a bipartisan manner this is not the greatest track record. He seems to be trying to compare every facet of his political career with that of Palin's time as mayor. What was his budget and staff during his "community organizer" years since that is the latest comparison with the second on the GOP ticket?

Honestly, I think Obama and Biden need to tread very carefully here. Palin may not have a fat resume but she does have some very strong positive accomplishments. Also Obama is so focused on Palin that he is leaving himself open to McCain. As former President Bill Clinton asked... suppose you have two candidates, one whom you only agree with half the time but they can deliver on those things and one you agree with all the time but you don't think they can deliver on any of them... whom would you vote for? But of course, he wasn't talking about this :-)