Bill Clinton’s latest whining about press coverage of his wife, Mitt Romney’s latest broadside on immigration, the various spins of the Iran intelligence volte-face, and the sterile who’s-got-more-God competition between candidates, look like the machinations of a disoriented power.
The United States needs a new beginning. It cannot lie in the Tudor-Stuart-like alternation of the Bush-Clinton dynasties, nor in the macho militarism of Republicans who see war without end. It has to involve a fresh face that will reconcile the country with itself and the world, get over divisions — internal and external — and speak with honesty about American glory and shame.
New York Times columnists aren’t allowed to endorse particular presidential candidates, but this looks like an implicit endorsement of Obama. And it’s the best reason to support Obama that I can think of.
I still haven’t made up my mind, but it’s ideas like this one that make me want to vote for him.
I’m no longer thrilled with any of the candidates, but as far as I can tell, Obama would be no better than Clinton–he equivocates at least as often as she does, and he doesn’t have terrific political instincts, which means he’ll be dead meat as soon as he needs Republican help to get anything done. His mentor in the Senate was Joe Lieberman, for Christ’s sake. He’s an old product in a new package, and I kind of resent being sold it. As lukewarm as I am about Clinton, I think she’s being more honest about who she is.
And I find the “dynasty” argument awfully convenient. Where was it eight years ago, when we were about to create a dynasty for the benefit of a far lesser leader? And why should any citizen be disqualified just because she had the “misfortune” to marry a future president?
That said, I’d be solidly for Edwards had he not agreed to accept public financing, making him the only one of the three who could not trounce any of the leading Republicans.
I am likewise unthrilled by any of the crop. I see us caught up in historical forces beyond any real direction or control — all the candidates are really, IMO, cut from the same cloth. I don’t see any of the front runners being able to give us what we need: a President who will not continue to expand the powers of the Executive branch but instead seek to repair the damage that’s been done to the system of checks and balances.
I think I’m back to my original position of some months ago when I said I wanted all the candidates dragged into the street and shot. I have no respect for any of them, and I think their candidacy just makes their criminality all the more public. None of them is worthy of the office, and I resent that Americans are going to be stupid enough to put one of them in it.
DJRainDog, you seem to have a skewed sense of how American Government works. Americans are REQUIRED to put one of these candidates in. We are not stupid for doing so. If you dislike the choices, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but to call us all stupid for simply following the Constitution is you being an asshole.
If you think you can do a better job, you are entitled to run for the office yourself, assuming that you meet the basic requirements as laid out in the Constitution.
What else would you have us do? Riot in the streets and revolt? We’ve seen how well that works in other countries…
I disagree that Obama is no different or no better than Clinton. I strongly reject that. I am reminded of the statement Hillary made when she entered the race: “I’m in it to win it.” I think she means that literally; that’s all she wants, and she’ll do whatever it takes. I think Obama is in it because he believes this country has gone terribly awry and he has a positive vision of how to fix things. Are some of his ideas lacking in detail? Are some of them pie-in-the-sky? Is he politically inexperienced? Okay, yes, sure, to all three. But he has a HEART, and it’s in the right place. I have not seen examples of Obama being an equivocator. And as Obama astutely and rightly points out, he was RIGHT on Iraq and Hillary was WRONG. She still is. We need a President with enough moral clarity to steer clear of disasters like that. The very fact that Hillary Clinton, coiner of the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy”, could support those same right-wing conspirators in their folly in Iraq is everything we need to know about her. Damn her “experience” and “qualifications.” Her judgment is based on political calculation. Exclusively. She would be as divisive and disastrous for the country and the world as Bush has been. No thanks.
DJRainDog, you’re awfully cute–both cynical and naive at the same time.
The candidates are in a way blameless. The problem is that we have a system of government that punishes integrity–literally, the only people who can rise to the top are the ones who game the system. What point is there in blaming them for that?
The design flaws in America are irreparable and they will eventually cause it to collapse. Until then, I think the best that we can hope for is a long run of competent stewardship, as we had under Bill Clinton.
Actually, Jere, you should go read Jefferson. This country has gone terribly awry, and it is time for the government to be overthrown and overhauled. So yes, I would have us riot in the streets and revolt. And I call the American people stupid not because I disagree with the Constitution, but because they are, by and large, a hideously ill-educated lot. The population of a country with such fine ideology as is reflected in the Constitution and its Amendments ought to be able to choose better candidates for leader from their ranks. Instead, they have, in their complacency, sold-out their ideals to money-mongering manipulators, who themselves cannot discern truth from falsehood. So yes, I’m an asshole (any and all of my friends will tell you that), but I’m also right.
Roger Cohen – oooooauuhghh!
Spit, spit – barf!