Barack Obama For President

From the very beginning -- back when our torture chambers still had that new torture chamber smell; and before our chief executive's incompetence exploded like an M80 inside the clenched-fist of the world -- George W. Bush has been an embarrassment.

We know his disgraceful deeds and policies. But it's his utter lack of quality; his unsubstantial presence; his marble-mouthed oratorical retardation; his inability to inspire greatness; and his empty-suit absence of intellectual curiosity which preordained him to be the worst President of the United States in modern history.

Admittedly, when it comes to the presidency, my personal level of idealism rests somewhere between Frank Capra and Aaron Sorkin. I'm a presidential geek. One of my life goals is to work in the White House for one week. My Dad's old office at the Treasury Department used to look out over the east lawn, and when I was a kid I used to imagine that one day the president would invite me and my Dad for a ride on Marine One.

But after seven years in this Dark Age, I've almost forgotten what it was like to have a real president occupying the White House: a president who, even if I disagreed with his policies and ideology, dignified the office with a stature that symbolized the awesomeness of America.

Emerson wrote, "Every hero becomes a bore at last. Perhaps Voltaire was not bad-hearted, yet he said of the good Jesus, even, 'I pray you, let me never hear that man's name again.'"

We seem to experience this routine with almost every two-term president. But President Bush was never a hero in the first place and only grew more ridiculous with each subsequent crime against the Constitution, against human decency and against democracy itself. If there's any justice left in this nation, history will record that President Bush was an entirely inadequate tool; a bungling villain whose early popularity grew out of a traumatic and patriotic need to support the office regardless of who occupied it.

And when the flood waters literally rose up and washed away the disguise, the slack-jawed poseur was revealed -- the "bore" who had always been there, but who had been previously and cynically costumed in cowboy drag. Some of us recognized the charade from the beginning, but it required a second national tragedy, this time in New Orleans, to alert the media and the rest of America to his criminal incompetence.

American history is inextricably tied to the presidency. It's how we mentally assemble the chronology of our past. For going on eight years, we've endured a chief executive who never should have ascended to this post. Consequently, this decade has been an aberration; a time when Americans somehow championed an illegitimate, Orwellian hooplehead and, naturally, we suffered for our lack of vision. This is how most of the first decade of this century will be remembered.

Yet our generation is being offered another chance here -- an opportunity to set things straight and elect a president who not only illustrates the historical qualities of the office, but who also defines an energetic new approach.

The next president has to be Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Obama's intelligence, passion and quality of character can inspire us to recapture our own potential for greatness. And after all these years of darkness, there is no alternative other than to correct our trajectory with someone who can elevate our common goals -- the American Dream. For the American Dream to survive, this era demands a new president who will include all of us in the debate over our future, whether or not we agree on every issue.

And I'm proud to say that I don't agree with the senator on everything. But it doesn't matter because this campaign is about much more than individuals and their pet issues. This is about the reacquisition of an ideal -- of a benevolent greatness which has been stolen away from us.

I see in Senator Obama an historic character who fits within my persnickety and idealistic template for the presidency -- and this time around, it happens that my idealistic choice has a realistic chance to win. So this isn't necessarily an endorsement based on ideology, but an endorsement based on that which is required from an historical perspective.

The alternatives on either side of this campaign are ultimately redundant to what we have now.

On the Republican side, each frontrunner represents a rage-inducing aspect of the present Bush regime. The Romney Unit represents the Paris Hilton fiscal policy of the Bush administration; Giuliani is the unstable, crazy-ass hubristic gunslinger; and Mike Huckabee is the cross-bearing fundamentalist who floats in the same fantasy world as Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards is a tough call because he has the right idea. But there was a thing with Edwards from 2004 that I can't seem to shake. And I've really, really tried. During one of the primary debates, Howard Dean stood up to answer a question. As was the campaign fashion at the time, Dean rolled up his sleeves. Then, behind him, I spotted John Edwards whose eyes suddenly widened at Dean's sleeve-rolling as if to say, Oh crap, I should roll up my sleeves now or else I won't be awesome like Howard. Then he quickly rolled up his sleeves. It was an awkwardly candid moment which revealed a lack of originality and, for my admittedly nitpicky tastes, a little too much of the staged illusion of it all. But most importantly, I imagined him exhibiting the same derivative behavior when voting with the president on Iraq.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, is certainly more intelligent and centrist than President Bush, but there's a secretive, calculating DLC side to the senator which drifts too dangerously close to the universe of Dick Cheney than the fresh approach her husband, President Clinton, offered in 1992.

Speaking of which, President Clinton said this week that Senator Clinton would dispatch the first President Bush on a world tour in order to repair America's reputation abroad. First, 'the hell you say?! Second, wouldn't that be just like a Cheney -- to use a Bush as a political tool. Seriously, we can't have this. Not even as a speculative talking point. Not any more.

This is what we're desperately trying to escape, goddamn it. This is why it's imperative that Senator Obama win the nomination and ultimately the White House itself.

Naturally, the day might arrive when President Obama becomes Emerson's bore. One day, years from now, we'll likely be lamenting the traditional media's "Obama Fatigue" narrative. But, by that time, I think we'll be prepared for the next era in American history. Hopefully, after two terms and eight years, President Obama will hand over his legacy to his vice president. But for now he's the historical antidote to the darkness and division we've endured for too many years. He's our best hope to restore the national equilibrium and to fulfill both the expectation of greatness the presidency deserves and, thusly, the greatness of America.

And no. However awesome it'd be, I'm not saying these things in exchange for a flight aboard Marine One. I mean, I wouldn't turn it down, of course... but that's not why.

--
Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! GO!

Comments

[thatvisionthing]

Chris Dodd is the one who pulled the sword out of the stone! If I had seen the frontrunners jump back to Washington to lead, or even PARTICIPATE, in the fight to defend the Constitution via the FISA bill filibuster, I would be fine with Bob here. But Dodd's the one who passed the test. He instantly jumps to the top of my slate of presidential candidates. Obama, Clinton and Biden flat out failed.

[swkidder]

You're going to disqualify John Edwards because you caught him rolling up his sleeves? That may be the single most ridiculous reason I've read to date on which to make a decision between two very reasonable candidates for the Democratic nomination.
Personally I favor John Edwards but that's because I had the gift of meeting his wife. She's just plain spectacular, and if he can win and hold that woman ... then he must be every bit the stellar human being you say you want to see as President. And the union rank and file also seem to like him and believe he's "real" - and they're pretty hard to bullshit.
Just a small piece of advice ... if you'd like to be taken seriously as someone whose opinion matters on the subject of "how large" a human being any of the various Presidential candidates might be ... pick a more compelling reason to write off someone's campaign than the one you gave? What you might actually have seen was a moment in time in which a very, very bright man saw something that might work well in our "American Idol/Multi-Media/You Gotta Look Good on Television" culture ... and grabbed it. That says nothing about his character and everything about his intelligence and ability to improvise.

[FrictionSoul]

You lost me there Bob, with "energetic new approach."

Just like the neocons, Obama poo-poos experience on the ground. He has no foreign policy experience, which is weird because 2 people instrumental working for him helped re-shape Clinton's policy towards Africa.

Like the neocons, Obama will bomb Iran for no other reason to show the world he's a tough prez.

Just like the neocons.

I like you Bob. You're hilarious and you're usually right on, so why this endorsement for Obama and not Kucinich? Is it because you think Kucinich can't win and thereby repeat the neocon mantra?

People have woken up. If the traidtional media wanted to give voters a choice, they would choose Kucinich, maybe for no other reason than he is integrity and his wife is hot hot hot. Not that I want to bone, her, I just love women who's smarts and courage transcend their hotness.

[BionicWoman]

When the story about Obama putting Arnold Swartzenager in his cabinet, my entire office was in a state of hysterics. This is the most ridiculous thing Obama has come up with yet. It is immature - it really shows his level of experience as a politician.

The democratic party will not allow this. There would be a big fight. If you want the Congress to cooperate, you don't start out this way. Jobs in the cabinet go to deserving members of one's own party.

It would be like promoting someone from outside of your company to a job that one of your employees worked hard for a long time to get. Management skills? Huh?

Is this really the time to bring in a President who is making fundamental mistakes before he even gets into office - when you need to do things right from the start? If he can't figure out who to put in his cabinet - how is he going to end the war?

[OkieMon]

Obama is simply not electable...

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/1007/obamafuckyouImage1.jpg

[SeanGardner]

Another huge endorsement for Obama from the PURPLE State of Virginia: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/12/20/us_rep_bobby_scott_endorses_ob.php

[strangelet]

Mr. Cesca -- My father was a high school political science instructor, and athletic director, and his office -- such as it was -- looked out on the lobby of the main building. So I did not have any childhood dreams of riding in Marine One.

What I *did* acquire, through high school and college in the sixties, was an understanding that the ultimate measure of Presidents (or anybody) is how much they actually affect the world, rather than what they stand for.

Jimmy Carter is almost certainly the finest human being to have served as president since Lincoln. He was also among the least effective Presidents of all time. He had no network; he didn't WANT to play the inside-the-beltway game; and as a result, he had almost no memorable accomplishments.

Obama is more savvy than Jimmy C. But he still lacks the web of mutual obligation that underpins successful Presidencies. Reagan lacked it on the surface, but he had proxies at many levels who carried him to success. Clinton was also short of mutual debt coming in, but he was probably the best politician we've seen since the founding of the country. With all due respect to Senator Obama, do you want to bet the future of the country on the premise that he is as compelling a politician as Bill Clinton?

There is a point to this rant, and it is the following: if you are committed to the concept that what is most important in a Presidential candidate is ideological purity, then you must support Obama, or Edwards, or Dodd, or Kucinich, depending on your particular ideological slant.

However, if you believe that what is most important in a candidate is the probability that he or she will be able to actually IMPLEMENT some constructive change, in my opinion your choices are narrowed to Clinton or Biden.

[londubh]

I agree that Obama should be the next President.

Everyone says Bush is a moron. I particularly liked the 'Orwellian hooplehead' moniker. I don't think Bush is stupid. He doesn't care what we think of him. He is inarticulate to be sure, but his utter contempt for is is shown by what he says. He is not embarrassed by it. He never gives it a second thought.

[mamacat]

Mr. Cesca, your description, and condemnation, of Bush, is very unfortuneately accureate. How in the world did we let ourselves be misled by this man, and this administration? It is horribly unconscionable, and tragic.

Regarding your endorsement of Sen. Obama, well, there I would take momentary pause. Its not that I don't think that he would probably make a fine President, because I do think he would. Its just that I am not ready to nay say any of the other Democratic candidates for the nomination.
Only one of them can come through this process with the Party's endorsement, but any and all of them would probably make a fine President. It is fortuneate that in the upcoming primaries, and in the eventual election, the nation is gauranteed a Democratic candidate who will offer hope, vision, and honor, instead of the fear, hatred, and corruption of the Bush years.

[Qbear]

The worst for Obama and Edwards will take place right before New Years Eve, that gives the smear a couple of news cycles to work it's damage, but not ewnough time for the target to repair the damage. Watch for a detestable mailing with NO Clinton fingerprints on it...that'll be the ONE.

[Lucere]

Well Bob,

You sure know how to stir things up.

Good for you...and thanks for another great post!

[Mygood]

I will vote in the primary for Dennis Kucinich because he has consistently voiced and stood for my own beliefs. To me, he stands head and shoulders above the other candidates. Those who try to factor in chin size or other minutiae are foolish.
Having said that, of course I will vote in the general for the Democratic candidate. If enough voters in the primary see the congruence of their beliefs with those of Kucinich then Kucinich will be our candidate. And if the electorate as a whole sees that he is the candidate who best represents them then Dennis Kucinich will be the next president.

[Sheridan1]

WE LOVE YOU BOB!
That being said, to other commentors here - what's this crap about the Republicans chewing up Obama and spitting him out? Which one of them? The corrupt 9/11 Mayor? The Mormon flip-flopper? The Religious fanatic who can't seem to separate church and state? Even Ron Paul, who is a reasonable man, is very Unreasonable on many issues that are on the world stage.
Unless they find a new candidate, I don't see which of these people could beat ANY Democrat running!
I would love to see a woman in the White House, but not this particular woman at this particular time. Obama is the face of change and he is a blend of all the best things we are as Americans. Who better to represent our country?? We need Obama NOW!

[animalhamilton]

Bob, you're being flakey.

find out where ALL the candidates stand on:
1. Iraq
2. Environment
3. Economy
4. Education
5. Healthcare
6. Social Security

where to stop the list.. maybe top two will do right now...

and tell us here, in the way you bring it, and we'll make our decision then.

___________
BOB RESPONDS: Seriously? You mean you can't go to barackobama.com and read about his positions on the issues yourself? Also, I think I was clear that I don't agree with him on all of the issues. But that's what's attractive about the senator -- you don't have to agree on everything to 'get it'.

[jswan]

I absolutely agree with you, Bob. I am disgusted, though, at all the posts here and comments elsewhere that, "We have to nominate someone elictable," Whatever the ** that is. Kerry was a big mistake, and he proved it when push came to shove and he didn't have the passion it takes to beat these criminals. Even Edwards, though he protested, he did not stand up and SCREAM when the election was stolen in Ohio and elsewhere. Gore... same thing. These nominees were good, centerist, and part of the establishement. They went along to get along. We nominated them above other, idealistic, powerful candidates that really stood for things we believed in. Where did that get us?

No, I believe that if we surrender our convictions to elect someone only becuase we think they will win the general election, we will, at best have the better of two bad choices. If we really believe in human dignity, the constitution, that healthcare is a public good and the war is a symptom of everything that is wrong with our society, then we need to nominate someone that will do something about it and give the general electorate an opportunity to make the right choice.

I believe they will. They will come out in droves to vote for someone they recognize as making a difference.

OBAMA is our man!