For Democrats, Obama the pick
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/20/08
According to a recent Gallup poll, almost three out of four Americans are dissatisfied with how things are going in our country, with just 24 percent believing we're headed in the right direction. The deep discontent reflected in those numbers have made Democrats optimistic about their party's chances of electing one of their own to the White House in November.
However, the situation represents more than a mere opportunity; it imposes an obligation on the Democratic Party to offer the country a candidate who can inspire the American people, a candidate capable of addressing the many critical challenges, foreign and domestic, that will confront our next president and commander in chief.
At times of crisis, this country has always been blessed with strong, even visionary, leadership. But that has not been true for the last seven years. To the contrary, on almost every front we are suffering the consequences of slapdash, divisive leadership.
Economically, the country appears to be sliding into a recession; internationally, our reputation on the world stage has perhaps never been lower. Militarily, our men and women in uniform have been burdened with responsibilities that they lack the manpower to carry out over the long term, and with the aging of the Baby Boom generation and a soaring national debt, our financial obligations likewise threaten to overwhelm the resources we have committed to meet them.
In Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama, the Democrats offer Georgia voters three candidates with the experience, leadership and character to begin to turn this country around. However, only two of those candidates now harbor realistic hopes for the nomination.
Edwards, a former senator from neighboring North Carolina, has used his campaign to voice the growing anxiety and fear of many in America's working and middle classes. It's an important message, as recent days have confirmed, and with economic troubles ahead, the issues that Edwards has highlighted could prove central in determining the outcome of the general election.
However, judging from the reaction of primary voters, Edwards' impassioned, crusading style may be better suited to a House or Senate race than a race for the presidency. He remains a distant third in most polls, and his hopes for the nomination no longer seem realistic.
That leaves Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. On questions of policy, not much separates the two. Their approaches toward health care, tax policy, foreign relations and the suppression of Islamic terrorism vary only at the margins.
(In fact, that similarity probably accounts for the dismaying pettiness of the disputes between the Obama and Clinton camps in recent days. Campaigns have to argue, and with little of real import separating them, they are now arguing over the little things and in some cases the imaginary things.)
The question, then, is which of the two candidates would be more able to implement the policies they agree upon.
Throughout the campaign, Clinton has argued that she has the better grasp of official Washington, which is probably true. Through hard work and intelligence, she has built an admirable record of success as a senator that has impressed even some Republican colleagues.
Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well — official Washington also has a better grasp on Clinton.
Perhaps burned by her experience in her husband's administration, she has too often chosen to play within the Washington system rather than dare to challenge its assumptions. And that's not the kind of leadership needed at the moment.
The prime example of that instinct was probably Clinton's vote last year in favor of naming Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. While that stance kept her in good standing in certain Washington circles, it also fed what at the time was a rising push toward military confrontation with Iran that was unnecessary and dangerous. Even voters willing to set aside Clinton's earlier vote giving President Bush authority to invade Iraq were taken aback when she seemed to have repeated that mistake.
For reasons largely outside her control, Clinton is also one of the more reviled figures in American politics. That sentiment is unfair and irrational, and she has done little to deserve it. But it exists nonetheless, and it would limit the amount of public support she would be able to rally as president.
Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated an appeal across many of the lines that have divided America. That is a critically important attribute, because the scale of changes that must be made to correct America's course cannot be accomplished with majorities of 50 percent plus one.
Different moments in history require different types of leaders, and part of the art of picking a president is matching the person to the challenge and to the time. So while both Clinton and Obama would make very good presidents, Obama is the person; this is his time.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/01/18/endorsed_0120.html"Edwards tone may be more suited for a house or senate race"
I love it, ha!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(113 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
