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

[ImpeachmentNOW]

.
Here's the rest of the "case" for O-BOMBA:

1. He is the most ignorant, inexperienced and lest-capable Dem politician running for president.

2. He is a total hypocrite on lobbyists. His efforts in support of Illinois lobbyists have cost US taxpayers $12 million (so far). (Documented by Brian Ross on July 16 - see ABC NEWS website) Michael Bauer, part of BO's National LGBT Leadership Council, is registered as a lobbyist with ResPubica Group, a Chicago based firm that serves corporate and noncorporate clients.

3. His shady real-estate dealings with his partner-in-crime Rezko stink!

4. Bomb Pakistan.

5. O-BOMBA is so devoid of creative thought, he has to steal the campaign ideas of John Edwards on healthcare, poverty and nuclear proliferation and try to pass them off as his own.

6. What's that white powder around his nostrils? (Must have had a powdered sugar donut, right?)

7. Note carefully this exchange to understand how dangerous it would be to have such an IGNORAMUS in charge of nuclear weapons:

2007-08-02 19:00:39 -

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance".
"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Eight years of having bumbling morons in charge is enough. America can, and MUST, do better than O-BOMBA.
.

[ShelW]

I just have to wonder, Senator's Clinton and Obama both claim they will be great leaders, but there are issues NOW where they could demonstrate their leadership.

Senator Dodd a few days ago stood up, alone, in the Senate, and demonstrated leadership. He stood up to defend the Constitution (yeah, remember the Constitution??? It's what every president and senator swears to uphold, when they take office), to stand against allowing this corrupt administration in giving an early X-mas gift to the phone companies that went along with BushCo and illegally wiretapped our telephones, read our e-mails, and generally spied on the American people, and this was BEFORE 9/11!

Is it really too much to expect Obama and Clinton to demonstrate leadership NOW, not simply talk about it?

Obama, when asked about Dodd's filibuster, said he supported him, but didn't really NEED to be there as only Nay votes would be counted, and he would be voting yea... Hey, GO TO WASHINGTON, and STAND UP with Senator Dodd and SHOW your leadership, don't talk about it!

I was very disappointed in both Obama and Clinton!

[SimplySam]

AMEN! Obama has the freshness and honesty we need. We have had enough of the old school "experience"..

[gdwtch52]

If you substituted Edwards for Obama, I would have to agree. I still see Sen. Obama as too inexperienced to be pres....and way too nice. Edwards seems well aware that his policies will not happen overnight and not without a FIGHT. Still his genuineness is too much for me to overlook.(As for the shirtsleeves, did you think maybe it was hot in the room? Pretty silly really.)
I'm sick of lies and half truths, and I sure don't want more of politics as usual ala XClinton. Edwards/Obama would be great....but Edwards/Dodd ?

[wagelaborer]

Yeah, Obama is tall, well-spoken and quick-witted. But he goes along with the DLC. Kucinich is well-spoken, quick-witted and he has policies that would turn America into the kind of country we could be proud to live in. Too bad he's short and non-corporate sponsored, so Democrats won't support him.
He really should drop the party that disses him so, and become a Green.

[indrakaran]

What a poignant presentation of a possible American Hero..

[sheine]

When will people wise up, Obama is an empty suit. The latest revelation today is that as a state senator, he dodged difficult votes. I would vote for Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and probably Richardson, but not Hilary or Obama.

[starman1695]

If you REALLY want a presidential candidate who isn't going to screw things up as much as any president in the past fifty years, you're NOT going to find him/her within the Democratic or Republican ranks. And THAT is the problem with the American political scene.

[solarfared]

"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."

Hahahaha, Bob, dear Bob, you really think there is some kind of reality basis to all this nonsense and political posturing? And Obama is immune to it?

You're not nitpicky, you're just stoned.

[overdown]

Can't we just compromise and have Hillary AND Barack on the same ticket? That would be dynamite here and around the world.

[cfinhollywood]

Here, here!!

[cjo30080]

The thing with Edwards from 2004 that I can't seem to shake is the memory of his weak performance in the Vice Presidential Debate.

[oldtree]

support someone that has no platform and wants to go after Pakistan? Are you loopy?, sorry, the facts precede the question

[ThisIsAllJustADream]

Obama has missed quite a few controversial votes this year. could it be that he just didn't want to piss anyone off? that doesn't say much for his character.

i'll vote for the guy in the general if he makes it that far but not in the primary. Edwards has my vote there.

[transendentilist]

Very well written piece. A bit idealistic, but well thought out. It also has the benefit of an Emerson quote.
I hear all this praise for Obama, like he's the second coming or something. What has he done? Are we basing such praise and adoration for him on his words alone?
In all fairness to Obama, he talks a really good game. He is very intelligent, hard working and somewhat charismatic. If he gets the nomination, I will gladly vote for him, but he is not my first choice. Biden and Richardson have the most experience, but the MSM is determined to make it a fight between Hillary and Barack.
I plan to vote for whomever gets the dem nomination. To do otherwise is to help the neo-cons, and I'd rather be shot than do that.