So, I’m home sick with the flu or whatever; and I haven’t been good for much other than sleeping and watching daytime television. I can tell you that daytime television is truly awful. For example, somehow Jerry Springer has gotten even worse than it was before. On the other hand, credit where it’s due, Drew Carey is a pretty good host for The Price is Right.
I’ve also seen a parade of Clinton-this, Obama-that on the news channels. It occurs to me that the Democrats might be having trouble picking a nominee because they have one candidate who will probably be great at running the government and one who will probably be great at leading the country. Which one is more important? I’m going with leading the country. But the question isn’t a no-brainer.
Without a doubt, leading the country. Reagan showed us that.
I think Barack is very Reaganesque in that regard. He’s going to point us in the direction that he thinks we should go in, eloquently make the case that we should go there, in a way that ackowledges the objections of the other side (rather than belittling them in the Clintonista fashion), and then get out of the way to let it happen (not unlike what Reagan did).
I don’t agree with the direction he wants to take the country, but I have a growing respect for the way he is doing it. For a man with such a thin resume, he’s a very surprising candidate.
I vote for running the country.
Isn’t it more of the job of Congress to run the government?
Of course we’ve had eight years of neither, so at least having a president that does one or the other would be a welcome start.
I’m with Buzzcut.
The important change to me (at least in my perception) is that Obama doesn’t seem to be interested in politics as usual. Ya know, the Democrat yells at the Republican, the Republican yells back, and this is supposed to be “debate over the issues”. Sure it is.
As far as running the country, of course, Obama would bring in many of the same folks who Clinton would bring in, so I really think that doesn’t matter.
To go further to make a point, let’s assume that Colin Powell hadn’t served in the Bush administration (a wish I’m sure he shares) and was still among the best candidates for Secretary of Defense. I think there’s no way in the world Clinton would call him, while I’m pretty sure Obama would, at the very least, give him a long, hard look.
I’m one of the (many?) people who can pull the lever for either Obama or Clinton. I agree with much of the social zeitgeist about the candidates.
The Clintons don’t exactly have my love given their canonization of Bruce Lehman and the hell he wrought on the industry I work in, but I cannot reasonably expect McCain to do better. Besides, given his age there’s a chance McCain will die in office and I don’t care to see what ghastly Republican would accede to power in his stead.
I agree with Joe’s point generally, but Colin Powell in particular is permanently on my shit list for his dog and pony show in front of the UN that was a critical step on the path to war in Iraq.
I tend to think he was being a good soldier, but at this level, there comes a time when you have to balk at the orders of your superiors.
Doug:
I don’t disagree around Powell. A lot of folks made the mistake of trusting what the Bushies had to say, just most of us didn’t do it in front of the UN. IIRC, there were also some intelligence sharing issues where I think countries weren’t realizing they were all using the same lone nut as their source.
But, yeah, he screwed up. At least he’s sorry for it and admits it, unlike some other folks.
Sorry folks, but leaders (real leaders) actually stand for something. They aren’t just glib and charismatic, but they have true principles that they stand behind.
Obama clearly stands for nothing, heck he can’t seem to be bothered with voting very often. That certainly isn’t the sign of a leader by any stretch.
Clinton? Don’t get me started. You’d have to be a blind partisan to think she’s out for anything more than personal power.
It’s a misnomer that Obama stands for nothing.
These debates have shown that he’s got a good head for policy. The wrong policy, for sure. But he has proposals. He knows what he believes.
Like I say in the link, he is a lot like Reagan in that regard. He knows what he thinks, and he is effective in communicating it in a way that doesn’t totally alienate the other side.
Doug,
I don’t have the flu, but I have been home for several weeks recovering from surgery. Daytime TV is probably the worst thing in existence, but I have learned quite a bit about gangster, presidents, and blowing stuff up on History and Discovery channels. All I can say is thank goodness I don’t have to rely on network television exclusively for television. All I am saying is, maybe you need to change the channel. But don’t go to MTV, that is worse than network.
Hope you get well soon.
Jacob Perry,
Would I be far off in guessing that Joe Lieberman would be your idea of a good Democratic presidential candidate?
Hey Jacob, what does John McCain stand for today?
There is a difference between “standing for something” (which implies having a particular set of goals) and having “principles,” and I don’t think either of them are prerequisites to being a leader.
Patton was a great leader – what did he stand for? Did he have principles? It was easy to know what Jimmy Carter stood for, and he clearly had strong principles. But was he a great leader?
As for Obama, one just needs to watch the debates (or avail oneself of the 1000’s of other opportunities to hear something about him). His ideas aren’t secret.