There appeared on Google News (on 10-22) an article called "Obama vs. Clinton vs. Kerry in '08?" And to that I say, "None of the above."
The leader America now desperately needs must have undeniable integrity and therefore the moral authority to speak to Americans about how we must repair the damage the Bushites have done. Hillary Clinton does not occupy such a space in the American mind-in part because, through her political conduct, she has shown herself to be more of a maneuverer than one who comes from conviction.
We need a leader who has clear vision, a solid understanding, and the courage and strength to go up against the forces of evil that have done so much damage to this country. John Kerry was handed the responsibility of providing that clarity and depth of understanding and courage and strength when he was the standard-bearer in that enormously important election of 2004.
We would not have Roberts and Alito on the bench; we would not be practicing torture and passing legislation to abolish much of the bill of rights; maybe we would have started doing something in Iraq better than "staying a course" that has proved disastrous.
But John Kerry showed himself in that race to be confused and weak-too confused and weak to defend himself when the liars attacked, and too confused and weak to tell the American people what was really at stake in that election.
We need a leader who has a thorough understanding of the system of government that he's trying to make work, of the larger world in which he will be guiding the world's greatest power in trying to repair very serious damage to the international system, and of the host of other issues facing the country and the history of how they got that way. But Barak Obama is a new-comer to that world-promising enough but not seasoned enough to be able to lead what needs to be more than the usual status-quo presidency.
None of those three, say I, is the leader we need to elect in 2008.
I would look again at Gore. Gore has those strengths. Some he lacked in 2000, but he's shown that he's come into his own in the years since then. There is now a solidity and an authoritative quality to Gore that was not there in 2000. He's shown that he can speak about these Bushites with prophetic power. He may not be charismatic, but he has shown clarity and strength, he has shown integrity, and he was also the last person high in the public world to act with any nobility-when he set aside his personal feelings (after the Supreme Court decision) and yielded to the (ostensible) rule of law in a gracious way. He showed himself, even then, to be so much better than these Bushites (who never put anything ahead of seeking advantage in their pursuit of power).
And I've lately been hearing rumblings of a possibility that Bill Moyers might be willing to run. He is another person who might have the right stuff for this historical moment.
*********
Postscript: [I wrote this piece on the weekend that the article appeared, and --thinking it a distraction from the urgent and more immediate business at hand-- decided to hold off on publishing it until after the mid-term elections. Which is to say, I wrote this before John Kerry handed the Rovians their opportunity to score points with his clumsily handled joke. I expect, therefore, that there's (even) less need than there was when I wrote this to point out Kerry's shortcomings as a standard bearer for 2008. In any event, here's what I wrote back in October.]
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
Absolutely -- Gore is the leader this country needs. He has vision; his stance on the environment and global warming shows that. He has the experience and ability -- all the strengths needed== as you so ably articulate. His lack of charisma may be a plus in this coming election: We have had enough truthiness about critical issues to suggest that people will be relieved to vote for clarity, strength and integrity instead of any slick campaign techniques and political charisma. The very promising but not seasoned Barack Obama can add some charisma to the ticket and then gain his experience in eight years as Vice President
I believe that Gore/Obama is THE winning ticket for Democrats in 2008.
by
Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments)
on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 2:13:02 PM
This is not no denigrate the people,names of which has been mentioned as potential leaders, but:
1. Gore will never run and if he runs he will lose. To run for President in the US you have to be an active politician. Gore not only sold his own party to the Bushes in Y2000 ( he presided at the infamous self- demise in Y2001 certification session) but he is out of politics. He can't win.
2. Obama cannot run either for Pres or for VP because he is black. Sorry, no racism, just practical politics. The US is not ready for a black junior senator to become more than that. His time might come but not in the Y2008. I am not even mentioning his politics. It is a reality that dictates the situation.
3. Hillary Clinton knows she will never have even a slightest chance for Pres because she is a woman. She might have a chance for VP if a strong Pres. candidate comes out but even that is unlikely. Sorry, same argument applies; we are not ready for Commander-in -Chief female, period. I am not a mysoginist- that is just a political reality; let's not be hypocritical. Condi Rice is just a tool and all reasonable people see that. Maybe it is even good that she is a tool: I am really afraid of her unilateral activities.
4. Kerry cannot win for two reasons: he does not want to win and he is a Catholic. Again, I am not a religious zealot. But the last time a Catholic was in the White House that was JFK, the votes were bought and also we all know what happened next. No way a serious party will bid on such candidate.
That is if any of the above are chosen for the Y2008 runs
that would be a signal that Dems do not want to win, period.
Bill Moyers and others like him are terrific people but they will not be able to win exactly because they are not in politics.
So, let's be reasonable and understand that the pool of candidates for the Demparty (that is if they truly want to win) is traditional- Democratic State Governors. Governor Strickland from Ohio comes to mind. Or Governor Dean again. Let's understand and be honest to acknowledge that the viable candidate must be:
a) white
b)man
c)protestant
d)family man
e)local politician with deep ties
f)reasonably good- looking
g) have a good record
h- the most important one: he has to be a statesman and show it by willing to fight for the Democratic Vision.
I sadly put this as the last because unless he has all the features a-g there is no chance in Hell for him to win.
Let's hope that the Demparty does want to win. And let's hope they find the right candidate for it. That is for winning it is. Not for the showmanship.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3462 comments)
on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 2:36:51 PM
What you say is quite plausible. But it is not the only possible plausible scenario. I don't think we can know so well as your tone suggests what might or might not be able to sell to the American people. If the process by which the truth unfolds over the next eighteen months is such that it arouses the American people to a sense of distaste for what has been done lately in the political arena-- well, then the state of mind of the American people may make them welcome a person who is not a politician --Bill Moyers-- who has knowledge of the world that runs very deep, including the world of politics, where he was press secretary to the President of the United States, as a potential leader, for perhaps one term. He's a man who manifestly has in spades what our political system has so sorely lacked over recent years. He has integrity. He has an open and inquiring mind (vs. our "curiously incurious" president. He is honest, and he is on a mission to serve the good and the true as best he understands them. Whether one agrees with him or not, I would think those qualities would be palpable and recognized by the American people.
And he brings vision,as
I would like to see some evidence that he has developed the skills that are necessary to sit on top of a huge pyramid and get the information one needs, and to sit at the control panel of a vast machine, and make sure it runs properly.
It would be nice to have someone who's effective at being an executive, as well as a man with the character and depth of knowledge of the kind that America needs to help heal and restore and rebuild.
My thanks to georip for supporting the idea that there is a place for vision. If we simply accept the pathological status quo about America, then we've given up the fight. We need to envision what MIGHT happen, and then wait and see how things unfold before we decide what CAN happen.
So we have a chance now to try to see how much of a spiritual renewal America is ready for. Bill Moyers could declare his candidacy for president in January, just after New Years. THis will mean that he will suddenly have a new degree of access to the mainstream media, as he becomes a kind of a story-- a guy, with a serious and brilliant if unusual resume, who is going around the country telling Americans what they need to hear to really be able to start repairing the damage that these BUshites have done-- not just in Iraq but at every level of structure and of spirit. He would become a story, if the media would only treat him as such.
This is something that Moyers could do whether or not he was actually interested in serving. It would be honest enough to suit me if Moyers showed only seriousness about actually getting elected, even if in his inner heart he's thinking "UNless this all unfolds in a way that's surprising to me, I am not really oriented toward getting elected but to speaking what America needs to hear."
What America needs to hear-- about its leadership --present and future-- from a potential leader (of some important sort) who is speaking from a political podium without having the usual politician's wanting to be all things to all people, and to maintain ambiguity to appeal to as many people as possible.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (303 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments)
on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 5:44:49 PM
' Power comes from the people
But where it goes
And whatever it reaches...'
B. Brecht
I am OK if we hear from Bill Moyers what you have listed. And I would say that if Bill becomes, say, EPA Admininstrator, that would be swell. But as for the President, we all should be honest with our expectations: the populist has not a chance in Hell unless he/she is supported by the might of the traditional political machine: at least one primary party, many other small parties, trade unions, professional and small business organization, section of big business, primary religion and also the media. To secure such support he/she has to run not on the platform of the 'fixing the bad system' but on the platform of 'engaging the good part of the system'. In short, only positivists win. Stakes are very high here. Life and death of many people, maybe millions. So what I would prefer from Bill Moyers is to come out and endorse a real candidate, point a finger, so to speak at the person who, from his point of view is the right one. And support that person 100%.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3462 comments)
on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 8:14:56 AM
Practicality and reasonableness are important - sure, but Einstein was right when he said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." and JFK inspired greatness when he said "Some men see things as they are and ask: Why? I dream of things as they might be, and ask: Why not?"
We need an inspired vision that appeals to all voters to meet the challenges facing America and the world. That is why I am supporting the presidential candidacy of Senator Mike Gravel. Mike is the senator who read the Pentagon Papers into the National Record and single handedly filibustered an end to the Viet Nam era draft. He opposed this war on national TV before it started. His vision is that unless we citizens are empowered to take a more direct hand in deciding the issues of our governance, the interests of the common man will continue to be overruled by the corporate juggernaut. His goal is to codify the "power of the people" lest our only recourse is to march in the streets. Corporate lobbyists have a recognized daily place at the legislative table, let's put the people there too. I urge you to visit www.gravel08.us He deserves to have a place in the debates. With the word of mouth support of people who believed Nader and Dean when they said "The people have the power!" perhaps we can get him there...to argue for a truly democratic vision.
by
GeoRip (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments)
on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 3:35:32 PM
I think that you dismiss Barack Obama too quickly.
Obama has taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. That is an impressive credential for "a thorough understanding of the system of government that he's trying to make work." This is backed up by a successful and notably bipartisan legislative record in both the Illinois legislature and the U. S. Senate.
Obama's life experience is fundamentally formed by an awareness of and involvement with life beyond our borders. He was raised in part in Indonesia (and with Indonesians, not in the segregated, ex-pat world), and his father -- a powerful if largely distant force -- was a Kenyan. His undergraduate degree is in international relations. All this points to a profound experience of "the larger world" that other candidates are hard pressed to match.
But the larger world is not separated only by borders. Obama also has personal experience of life with little privelege and the struggles that go along with that. Again, one can see this reflected in his legislative record.
Lastly you say that Obama is not seasoned enough. It is true that he is young, but then again if he runs and wins, he will be older than Presidents Kennedy and Clinton were when they took the oath of office. I am unsure, as well, how much 'experience' of any kind helps prepare someone for the presidency. Bush (the father) had one of the most impressive resumes in Washington, but he took us into two unnecessary wars as well as utterly missing the unique opportunity presented by the collapse of the Iron Curtain in Europe and the demise of the apartheid regime in South Africa. Johnson was seasoned practically to leather by his years in the Senate but this did not save him from massive blunders both at home and abroad. And the Vietnam War was extended for five years while the public relied, mistakenly, on Nixon's experience in international affairs to bring it to an end.
Obama brings a wealth of unusual and entirely relevant experience to the table. More importantly, Obama is not only very intelligent, he thinks. He is judicious, examining the philosophical foundations of an issue before plunking for a position. Personally, I find this very refreshing right now. He is courageous. He spoke out against the war in Iraq when this was very risky. More recently, he has gently but forcefully made the argument to liberals that profound religious faith is not inherently dangerous or wrong. And while Obama is no saint (do read his memoirs, Dreams From My Father, for some unusual political autobiography), he has a quality that in presidents far outshines blamelessness. He may make a mistake, but it is very rare to see him do it twice. In other words, he learns.
I reject the notion that Obama is unelectable because he is black. For one thing, polls show that the number of people who would not vote for a candidate because he is black have dwindled over the last fifteen years into the single digit percentages. Second, it would be a very grave loss and a severe disservice to the nation for us to bypass the opportunity this man represents for such a paltry reason. Here is a leader with a subtle spirit, intelligent, principled and grounded, one with both charisma and style, and of unimpeachable integrity.
Obama has only allowed the possibility that he will run. Even if the Democratic Party's choice ends up being someone else, he would do us all a great service by bringing his unique voice to the conversation. Unfounded assertions that he is a poor candidate are both misguided and unfortunate. We should do everything we can to persuade him to run.
by
Owen Jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 8:45:23 AM
If this is response to my comment about practicality
then I just want to say that I do not dismiss Obama, I just say that his time will come. But so far there was no such precedent to show that a junior senator, black and just fresh in Congress has a chance. And because the stakes are so high I still think that to win, to guarantee winning the risk has to be mitigated and the standard candidate has to be there. I do not want to sound cynical, I just do not want us all to miss the real target here: be prepared that we can pay dearly for losing the Y2008- if McCane runs and wins the GOP secures it and forever we are doomed. It is life and death. So, Obama, respectfully, should wait for his turn.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3462 comments)
on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 9:17:47 AM
In fact, my larger comment was a response to the original article by Andrew Schmookler, but my rebuttal of this idea that Obama can not win because he is black, an issue Mr. Schmookler never raised, was partly in response to your comment. Since this is an important straw man to knock down, I will respond a bit more fully to you. You say that there is "no precedent". In 1960 few people took Kennedy seriously at first because he was Roman Catholic. This was a time when the KKK and other groups considered Catholics just as much of a threat as Jews and blacks, and the general public held strong beliefs that Catholics were more loyal to the Pope than the United States. Kennedy bided his time and then dealt with the issue decisively in a single speech. Kennedy started his run as a Catholic junior senator with a very light and insubstantial legislative record and ended in the White House. Obama has a solid, bipartisan record of accomplishment in both the Illinois State and the national legislatures. While the parallel is inexact (we are talking about politics here), it is sound.
You speak of practicalities. If we are going to be practical, let's field the strongest candidate. The way we do that is by getting the folks that look most promising to engage in a public debate with each other in the primaries. And it always works. The voters in the primary states do a pretty good job of finding unexpected weaknesses and strengths. We may occasionally despair of the result but I think this says more about the low caliber of candidates we are encouraging rather than a failure of the process. John Kerry, for instance, is not a strong candidate but he was the best of a middling bunch. Bill Clinton, of whom precious few had ever heard before the 1992 Iowa caucus, excels on the campaign trail and emerged from nowhere because of it. Obama is a very strong campaigner. Just ask Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean; it is one thing that they can all agree on. As a general principal I think it is very practical to ask the best we know to try it out and live with the result. I think it is a real injury to the Democratic Party and the country to argue that any candidate should not run. (I can easily explain my hesitations in supporting Ms. Clinton, but I think it is excellent that she is running and I am fairly sure I will end up voting for her if she becomes the Democratic nominee.)
Having laid out the general principle, allow me to explore the particular case. We are somewhere around twenty months away from the Democratic national convention. With all due respect, neither you nor I really know how ready the country is to consider fairly the prospect of a black candidate. Fortunately, there is plenty of time and an efficient, if ugly, process for finding out the answer to that question between now and the convention. I think it is both ironic and very sad that it is being argued by liberals and progressives that the country is 'not ready'. There have to be some happy faces among the few, ancient members of the John Birch Society at the thought of their argument being made for them by their opponents. I have an idea: let's challenge the country and the Democratic Party. Let's ask one of the most exciting politicians in decades to run and see what the voters think. You might get one of the best surprises of your life.
by
Owen Jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 12:09:16 PM
when there were 9 official candidates for the Y2004 run, two of which were black I wrote a letter to them nine asking, even pleading for them together to decide who of them was the most needed, most necessary and most realistically had a chance and throw their full support to that candidate. Obviously nothing of the kind happened.
I agree in principle and support that concept of the challenge you have formulated. And it is very commendable, the way you approach it with all that hope and gusto. I have an article ( under my name Mark Sashine) on this site ' Pride and Joy and me' in which I am happy with the recent Dem victory and with the same hope. And of course, I cannot say that I am absolutely right about the black person not having a chance. So, saying all that I would add that if the framework of that challenge of yours is laden and fair, I would only be happy to admit my wrongness.
Thanks
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3462 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 8:32:36 AM
9 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
