Obama It Is
If the New York Times online had not foolishly put its writers behind a subscription firewall I could read Maureen Dowd’s column titled “How About Obama?” today, which I assume makes a case for our fine Illinois Senator Barack Obama to run for President in 2008. I couldn’t agree more (if that is indeed what she is saying), especially in light of the pathetic effort the Democrats have made over the course this disastrous Bush Presidency to establish any kind of opposition. Our collective suffering is a bipartisan one, a list of national and international grievances too long to itemize here, but what is obvious is that with one party in power there is no one to stop the bleeding.
Obama appears to be, at this time, a man who could rise above the kind of partisan squabbling that a Hillary Clinton could not. Nothing will exacerbate the continuing polarization of this country more than having Clinton as the Democratic candidate for President in 2008, unfortunately. Her husband could no doubt win another election (his popularity has never dipped to the sustained lows of the current occupant), and perhaps his presence as possible First Man could help Hillary’s chances, but I have my doubts. Obama, on the other hand, could provide a unifying presence that breaks down these barriers and possibly open the door for a shift in our deteriorating national attitude.
I know, this sounds hopelessly optimistic, but I can’t think of one other person/candidate right now in either party who may have that potential. And while I greatly support Russ Feingold’s efforts to censure President Bush, the Democrats have once again cowered in the corner and let another opportunity to gain the support of the large majority of Americans (60% and growing) who disapprove of Bush’s Presidency pass by. Impeachment is not going to happen with a Republican majority and a timid Democratic party, so it is time to shit or get off the pot: Obama is a chance for redemption.
You can read the Dowd column here:
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com/2006/03/maureen-dowd-whats-better-his-empty.html
I agree that Obama may be a very viable candidate but I disagree about Hillary’s chances (even with Bill’s popularity). NYer’s have said that they wouldn’t back Hill as well as CA. She is very polarizing and her attempts at being seen as a moderate have failed. So good luck with Obama.
that’s why i said i have my doubts.
I dunno, I think it’s generally a good idea to keep people from reading Dowd. :)
That said, I’d love to see Obama as president, but I wonder if his lack of experience in national politics would hurt him overall. I mean, he has the fact that he won’t have a long track recording of voting working in his favor, but he’s a junior senator who won’t have even served one-term yet… I don’t think that works for him.
As for Hillary, I’m reminded of a scene from the Rainmaker when Matt Damon’s character looks at corporate toady attorney seated across the table and asks him, “I’m just wondering, do you even remember when you first sold out?”
six years as gov of texas seemed to be enough for people to vote for GWB. of course, maybe some more experience would have helped him to not do such a shitty job as prez.
4 years as a senator might be the perfect amount – no long track record and everyone sure as hell knows who he is.
No one (even the Republicrats that I know) voted for Bush for any reason other than his name or his oil money. “Obama” doesn’t have the blue-blood family name…
Oil money and name huh? guess the poll that showed people thought he was a “straight-shooter” had nothing to do with it.