Update: I'm miffed that the author of the piece that led to this entry did not mention my post, while citing that near non-entity Digby take a critical view ... though "a bucket of vapid lukewarm spit" is a nice turn of phrase. A tad bit harsh, maybe? Lol.
In 2000, Bush offered a political reconciliation: Elect me and the bitter partisanship will come to an end. "I don’t have enemies to fight," he said at his 2000 convention, "and I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years. I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect." That was a promise that today no one could plausibly claim Bush meant in the first place, but it was just what many Americans wanted to hear.
-- Paul Waldman, "The Obama Zeitgeist"
This is the basic reason why I strongly dislike President Bush -- simply put, he promotes an asshole policy. I don't like assholes. And, this full of shit deal (the fact people bought into it is even worse) that he was somehow different from Clinton (or the stereotype of him), someone to be a "uniter" underlines the point. Now, his father followed a comparable policy in a fashion -- in politics, best left to the help, you will do some distasteful things. OTOH, in public policy, Bush Senor actually has some respect for the rules. Not quite so as to some of his people, who are around now as well, but there was a clear difference.
And, the difference was clear at the time as well -- Junior was in effect his bagman. The one to do some of the dirty work. We might need such people, up to a point, but having them in charge -- even in a place like Israel -- it generally speaking a bad idea. Now, we can contrast this with Sen. Barack Obama. Waldman argues, continuing the opening quote, that in "a similar way—and sincerely, it appears—Obama is offering a national reconciliation."
Seems like a nice enough guy who can actually be a uniter. And, his aspirations of hope and progress match my ideals. Finally, Waldman notes that his rhetoric could still allow him to support progressive policies. They could be sold as centrist ... a shifting of the median line that many of us would support.
OTOH, I don't really like the guy. He's promoting his book, so every time I went to the AOL welcome screen last night, I saw his face. Annoying. Why? Well, I just don't see any of that risk taking hard edged fight that I want in my leaders. Before one says anything, Bush really doesn't do this -- thus his promotion of secrecy, b.s., and continual surrendering (at least publicly) at the end of the day when forced to do so. I want to see Sen. Obama to actually put his beliefs into practice, to show that -- push comes to shove -- he would not weasel out.
Indeed, Obama is that oddest of all creatures: a leader who's never led. There are no courageous, lonely crusades to his name, or supremely unlikely electoral battles beneath his belt. He won election running basically unopposed, and then refused to open himself to attack by making a controversial but correct issue his own.
-- Ezra Klein, "Waiting for Barack"
I simply don't see this so far. He supported Lieberman's primary race. Delayed opposing the Get Away With Torture Act of 2006 (why not just stand side by side with his fellow senator's early opposition?), eventually co-sponsoring a doomed nice sounding amendment. Voiced opposition to the filibuster of Alito ... while it was being attempted! Made a show of supporting reform of campaign finance, showing some independence by openly opposing McCain's efforts to make it bipartisan, but in the end did nothing. I did not really quite care for his "let's all be friends" speech in support of religion in public life that adopted the meme of the religious right. And, he did not follow up his laughably easy win (against ahem Alan Keyes) and broad support with anything that actually used some of that clear capital.
As the subtitle of the Klein piece notes, "A leader leads. Before Democrats move to draft Barack Obama as their '08 candidate, they might wait to see if he can." He might give many in the base the warm fuzzies, but I'm not ready to trust him as a national leader.
[I also am with Molly Ivins on the "inoffensive feminism" approach of Hillary Clinton; h/t Feministing. The Senate might be the best place for the both of them. The path past this horror show is not "back to the future" moves like voting for another Clinton. That goes for you too, Mr. Maverick (non-James Garner version). What next? Jeb in 2016?]