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

[Liam]

I have to say, I've been disappointed with Mr. Obama. I've been to see him speak twice, and he's a talented orator, but he seems long on statements of problem and short on actual solutions.

His speeches contain a lot of "America needs to be this" and "We need to stop that", but I've been underwhelmed by the level of specificity in how he plans to take things down.

I have now seen most of the major candidates (notable exceptions being Clinton on the left and Huckabee on the right), and the candidate who seems to most embody what I believe we most need in this country right now combined with some actual concrete proposals as to how to accomplish those things is John Edwards.

He is also, according to a recent poll, the only potential Democratic candidate who wins universally in a hypothetical match up with any of the likely Republican nominees, while Clinton is beaten in a match-up against McCain, while Obama is in a statistical tie with a couple of others.

I think this is an important time in our nation. A time that requires the right person for the job. And to me, that person is John Edwards.

Liam.

[ang4ever]

.
Mr. Cesca,

With due respect, you hardly know the meaning of the word President !

Ang

[shedances]

Like many Americans, I too have a great deal of respect for Barak Obama ~ & experience no disquiet over his history & ideology. Obama also, obviously, possesses much integrity, intelligence and backbone ...

... but, I'm not 110% convinced that our mixed public is progressive enough for a minority president. I wish it were.

I'm also proud of more than one candidate filling the Democratic Party side, this coming election (though, admittedly, I had hoped Al Gore might jump in at the last sec) ... besides the Ill. senator, there's also the smarts/political savvy of Clinton, as well as the hard-earned wisdom of Biden.

Happy Holidays to all the presidential hopefuls!

Kelli

[Sussanonymous]

Bob Cesca sums up G.W. Bush's woeful and disastrous inadequacies brilliantly -- I've seldom seen it done so elegantly, accurately, and concisely -- but writing off John Edwards because he rolled up his sleeves after seeing Dean do so four years ago? Please. How does Cesca know, for example, that the look on Edwards' face wasn't one of relief, because it was hot he had wanted to roll his up too, but wasn't sure of the protocol at whatever event it was? To dismiss a candidate who has been out front in his solid support of the working class, unions, health care for all, getting out of Iraq, ending the gross and undemocratic influence of lobbyists, ending corporate CEO abuse and malfeasance -- is absurd. Keep in mind: Edwards does what he does without shilly shallying, backstabbing (or dissing an entire generation as too "confrontational," a generation that, by the way, did much to stop another bad war). But he fails the test because in his first time on the national stage he rolled up his sleeves after Dean did and his face looked -- I don't know, happy? The truth is, Edwards has grown, immeasurably. I find that heartening, encouraging. We need somebody who can adapt to quickly changing times and threats and still maintain rock solid Democratic principles. Edwards has shown us he can.

[LoRiseAntlers]

Obama's as much a corporate candidate as Hillary.

If you want real change,and not some bullshiat agitprop lackey who will do what the corporatists
tell him or her,support Kucininich.

The rest of the Democratic late are corporate whores.

[abdiel]

This is being resent as it was not published the first time -- can't see why, hardly "obscene" or any such thing.

I hesitated to read this post because I felt that I've heard it all already by the Obamaheads - "change," "politics of hope," "inexperience is the right kind of experience" (talk about Orwelian,) yadda, yadda, yadda. But this post is the most bizarre piece of religious-like political masturbation that I have ever read.

I was waiting for a sound file to come up singing, "oh! Come let us adore him!"

I thought that I was reading the hidden and lost book from the New Tesatament:

"Yeah, even if I don't agree with his policies and ideology, it is all good, Obama's unseen and gloriously great benevolence will save us all once we raise him to top of the mountain! For it shall not be by his policies that you will know the saviour, but rather by that which shall be historical."

And the elitist arrogance of the following statement is breathtaking:

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

Um, sorry. If he wants to find a candidate whose vision for change, peace, and progress has been consistent, passionate, noble, fair, and proven (I know, he's never pretended to be the all great and wonderful benevolent and supreme historical being, but he has a real life record to back him up) Cesca should at least try to look beyond the media darlings -- Dennis Kucinich makes Obama look redundant in comparison.

Kucinich dares to make his campaign slogan, "Strength Through Peace." Obama has already embraced unilateral assaults against the sovereign nation of Pakistan -- oh, but it's not about policies or ideology...it's about the future and greatly benevolent historical being that will show himself when he has risen!

Figure that...the word peace...what an unusual and refreshing chance to "get it right." Strength Through Peace -- what an uncommonly good idea!

[Jonahson]

I do not recall in American History a President worst than Bush. The question is will it happen again? Will history repeats itself again or worst still a future President who is more abusive than Bush? No one can guarantee the future but can some assuarance be put in place to saveguard against abuse of the constitutions by future Presidents?

[bighat]

I had not realized President Bush has become so powerful. Between the comments on Huffington Post and USA today Bush has revoked the constitution and has become not only king but has added emperor and dictator to his resume. Bush did it so smoothly that it has not even made headlines in the national media. But I have learned by reading these same comments that the national media is all owned by neocons. Even NBC that was going to hire Rosie O'Donnell as unbiased news anchor. Bush has been able to do anything from whipping up a hurricane to parting the Red Sea. I heard Superman is even envious of the power of W. I thoroughly enjoyed the comment by Mr. Cesca that Hillary is more centrist. Must have gotten this idea from Mr. Redford. After all, Mr. Redford's Lions for Lambs was just anbiased viewpoint with the intention of making us think. If Mr. Obama is on the ticket I will vote present

[homovivens]

While Krugman's equanimity has runoff with his horse in this race, Hillary, whom he, with some imagination, depicts as the candidate of change and Obama as "anti-change," it's NYT's conservative and unlikely David Brooks who has taken up Krugman's slack.

Brooks extols Obama: "Like most of the rival campaigns, I've been poring over press clippings from Obama's past, looking for inconsistencies and flip-flops. There are virtually none.

"In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual."

Clive Crook of London's Financial Times also extols Obama: "[T]he Democratic party's progressive base has mixed feelings about [Obama's] revival. What is their problem, one wonders? What could be more exciting or more transformative, from their point of view, than this candidate? Mr Obama is a clever, reflective and engaging man; he has dedicated his impressive intellect to a liberal political vision; he has a voting record in the Senate that puts him well to the left of Mrs Clinton; he makes, nonetheless, a strong appeal to the centre; he carries none of the baggage of the Clinton dynasty; and, in a country still riven by race, he just happens to be black. [Hey, Krugman] What's not to like?

"....Angry progressives are as repellent to the centre that Mr Obama aims to recruit as the Republican fundamentalists at the other extreme. If the centre counts -- and there lies the gamble -- then the squirmings of the Democratic base are an asset to be exploited."

The zeitgeist is so not early '90s circa Bill Clinton. The signs of the times read: real change.

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Full Stop: OBAMA 2008

[dwcokla]

The first Clinton Presidency saddled us with a Nuclear North Korea plus an IRAN seeking Atomic Weapons. Additionally we suffered thru the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center ATTACk, destruction of two embassays in Africa.. a decalaration of War on America from Osama Bin Laden, etc..

Clinton's response was to talk loud and continue talking.. and for Heavens sake.. don't MAKE anyone MAD..

What will OBAMA's position be if IRAN does deliver on it's threats to use Nuclear Weapons on ISRAEL .. ?? Will he be able to make a hard choice.. ?? or will he waffle on the tough issues.. like the Clinton Administration did..

I say we need to talk OUR way out of this.. so vote for Hillary. Maybe Bill Clinton will make us FEEL Good about Waffling again if IRAEL is Destroyed.. Then Bill can go around apologizing to the Jews..

[lastams]

Ridiculous?
What"s ridiculous is how the congressional leadership refuses to take them to task.
Everytime this President thumbs his nose at the Courts and Congress, and the Congress does nothing about it, it just allows the White House to move the goal posts further afield.
There have been ADMITTED violations of the Hatch Act, the Presidential Records Act, the FISA Act.
The Attorney General was caught in blatant lies while testifying before Congress.
Millions of e-mails are missing, Congressional subpoenas ignored, a CIA agent was "outed", and RNC officials found guilty of election fraud in Ohio.

In the meantime, this administration has pushed though the Military Commissions Act, the Warner Defense Act, Presidential Directive 51, and this week, the all new HR1585 that contains the so-called "National Guard Enhancement Act.
In total, what the administration has done, is give themselves the power to declare martial law without the consent of Congress and has placed all National Guard units under the Department of Defense.
They have taken away habeas corpus from "any person, in breach of an allegiance or duty the United States" (who) knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States".
When you consider that Cheney thinks he IS the United States, and you have a rather broad net.
George Bush ridiculous? ¦ no, what he is is dangerous, and getting more so.

[neoconcriminals]

The scary thing about this Obama thing is that no one seems to have learned anything from Kerry's defeat in '04.

Running to beat a Republican means that you can't have training wheels on your bike while trying to win the office.

I'm done holding my breath, waiting for the fighter to reveal himself in Obama.

Yeah, there's a hell of a lot that scares me about Hillary. But HUCKABEE, christ, he'll set this country back centuries. I'll take Hillary over any repbub.

And we'd get a republican if they run against Obama.

[esl]

Well, of course, your ideal of a good president would have to be a man. There is no mention of your mother anywhere in your essay. Your essay sounds like you are living in a fantasy. Keep dreaming, young man, for it will be a strong, idealistic woman who actually participated in the glorious sixties who will be our next president. While you look fondly at the past (male-dominated) history, millions of us are looking to a future with a woman president. I hope and pray we get to the polls in greater numbers, and I think we will. Too many of you will oversleep because you are dreaming. That's why we lost in 2000 and 2004.

[poopdeck]

Senator Obama is one of the "paymasters" of the war in Iraq. His sentence should be : no president, no vice-president.

[thatvisionthing]

Thom Hartmann radio show Presidential Straw Poll Results from 12/20/07

Who would you vote for if the election were held today?

Senator John Edwards 38

Congressman Dennis Kucinich 27

Senator Hilary Clinton 4

Senator Barack Obama 3

Gov. Bill Richardson 2

Senator Chris Dodd 2

Senator Joe Biden 1

Former VP Al Gore 1

Congressman Ron Paul 1

Former Pres. Jimmy Carter 1


-- And I would add 1 vote for Mike Gravel