Top Ten Jobs for Bill and Hillary Clinton in an Obama Administration

10). Obama should immediately appoint Bill and Hillary to the Supreme Court. Hey, those black gowns will work a lot better for Hillary than her candy-colored pantsuits. And I bet Bill and Clarence Thomas will enjoy discussing legal theories concerning the Constitutionality of adult videos.

9). Since Hillary has shown an inclination to work till 3am, why not assign her to the top job at the White House switchboard?

8). Hillary’s vivid accounts of dodging sniper fire and mortar rounds indicate she would make her an ideal candidate for America’s top ambassador to the Green Zone in Baghdad.

7). Hillary talks about being a fighter a lot so why not give her five stars and appoint her as Secretary of War? I bet the Iranians will think twice about enriching uranium when she’s got the top slot at the Pentagon because they’ll know Hillary has a penchant for proving she’s man enough for any job.

6). If I were Obama, I’d appoint Hillary and Bill as goodwill ambassadors to the international space station.

5). Bill and Hillary have proven they’ll do anything it takes to get back to the White House. Hillary has downed shots of vodka, visited NASCAR, and passed herself off as a good’ old gal. Obama should assign Bill and Hillary to the White House motor pool, and let them be responsible for keeping the presidential limo spiffy shiny and clean.

4). I’m sure the Clinton’s just great at leading tours of the White House, though the secret Oval Office broom closet and the Lincoln bedroom should be off-limits to visiting girl scouts troops, unless Hillary accompanies her hubby.

3). Appoint Bill Clinton to the Court, the White House indoor basketball court that is. Hey, Bill Clinton supported affirmative action, so it’s only fair to have a token white guy who can’t jump on Obama’s team.

2). Bill Clinton playing “Hail to the Chief” on hi sax. How cool would that be? Obama should pick the big guy to lead the White House Band.

1). If Obama is foolish enough to pick Hillary as his VP he should insist on getting two for one by getting Bill as his food taster.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Ways Hillary Can Pander Her Way to the Presidency

10). Promise to give each and every American $1,500 gift card to use at the mall of their choice. Hey, if every American could afford to purchase a second or third giant screen TV it sure would help stimulate the economy. And who better than Hillary to get tough with the Arab oil sheiks in order to get them to lend us the money to finance this scheme.

9). Hey, if Hillary would promise to obliterate Crawford, Texas it sure would make up for her vote to give the warmonger George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

8). Offer raffle tickets to ordinary citizens where the prize is an overnight sleepover in the Lincoln bedroom. The prize should include quality time with Bill and other VIPs. Winners, of course, must be over 21.

7). Subsidize massive federal boondoggle to turn marijuana into cannabis-based ethanol. Hey, weed is already America’s #2 cash crop. Let’s see if we can get higher mileage with hybrid cars that run on fumes. This should solve global warming too. And it’s doubtful it will lead to more traffic accidents, assuming drivers don’t inhale.

6). Forget the gasoline tax holiday. Like a lot of Americans I consume a lot more alcohol than I do petrol. How about a tax holiday on Hillary’s favorite beverage, the boilermaker? I’ll drink to that.

5). Hey, if Bill can pardon billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, then why couldn’t Hillary pardon me for the $28,432 I owe in unpaid parking and traffic fees? A traffic infraction amnesty for all Americans is just what Hillary needs to propose to pick up some Red states.

4). Draft dodging chicken hawk Republicans have succeeded in Swift boating liberal war heroes for too long. Hillary should retroactively reinstate the draft for top government officials who used multiple deferments and the National Guard to avoid one senseless war when they were young only to start another when they were old. Let’s see how Dick Cheney and George Bush look in Kevlar helmets and body armor as they dodge IEDs, mortar rounds, and sniper fire in “Free Iraq.”

3). I’d vote for Hillary if the Clinton campaign would make “She’s so Cold” by the Rolling Stones her theme song. Hey, but if Obama should happen to get the nomination after all I’d love to hear “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead” following Barack’s acceptance speech.

2). Hillary should pledge to appoint Al Gore as Chief Justice of the World Court responsible for investigating and prosecuting Crimes Against Humanity (including any and all high government officials who may have authorized torture, preemptive war, and election fraud). Let’s face it, I want to see the rightful winner of the 2000 election order Bush confined to a straightjacket while the disgraced ex-president undergoes a thorough psychiatric evaluation.

1). Hillary should promise to pick her vice-presidential running mate from a pool of contestants that face off on a popular reality-based TV show like “Survivor.” Contestants will have to compete in a series of silly tasks designed to reveal their capacity for ruthlessness, duplicity, and backstabbing. The contestant that would make the Clinton’s want to hire a food taster the most wins the second spot on the ticket.

Sphere: Related Content

The Case for Gore/Obama

Hillary Clinton has risen from the dead more times that Count Dracula. She’s sending shudders down the Democratic establishment, however, since the more primaries she wins the less popular she becomes. Indeed, with Hillary’s likeablity rating hovering around 35% -- a virtual untenable number for a candidate who hopes to win the presidency – her only shot at winning the Democratic nomination lies in tarnishing Obama. Hence the paradox, the better she does against Obama the more despised she becomes among the younger and better-educated voters that represent the future of the Democratic Party.

Hillary is drawing kudos from conservative commentators for her tenacity. Her single-minded willingness to fracture her party in order to win the nomination is reminiscent of George W. Bush’s obsessive quest to “win” in Iraq even if it means destroying the U.S. military, the dollar, and America’s strategic position. The scorched-earth self-righteous obliviousness of the two “leaders” is more than a little eerie. No wonder right-wing pundits are singing Hillary’s praises; they recognize in her a kindred spirit.

Hillary’s penchant for distorting the truth, her top-down management style, her us vs. them outlook, and her proclivity to pander to the lowest common denominator make her seem like a liberal mirror-image of that discredited “compassionate conservative,” George W. Bush. I don’t believe the United States can withstand another four to eight years with a polarizing politician who has trouble acknowledging the truth and can never admit they’re wrong.

Hillary, however, has exposed significant weaknesses in Obama’s candidacy. The first African American candidate with a chance at winning the presidency has trouble connecting with the so-called Reagan Democrats. I’d like to think this has more to do with the fact that many of the blue-collar workers that have trouble with Obama are anti-intellectual rather than racially bigoted. To be fair, Hillary also has to contend with stereotypes and misogynistic attitudes that unfairly hamper her ability to be judged on the basis of her message, record, and character.

Hillary probably cannot catch Obama in terms of the pledged delegates or the popular vote count. But her efforts to pin the “elitist” label on her rival could well cost Democrats the election in November. It would be a catastrophe for the Democratic Party the country, and progressive values if the Clinton’s perpetual selfishness helps hand the White House to George Bush designated successor, John McCain. The best way to avoid political suicide -- particularly if Obama cannot convincingly close the deal in the remaining contests – would be for Democrats to turn to Al Gore to head the ticket with Obama as his running mate.

For those of us who support Obama – and see in him the potential to be a great president and a champion for progressive values – a decision on his part to accept the vice-presidential nomination would be disappointment, unless that figure was Al Gore. But a decision of that kind on his part would be in keeping with the kind of character Obama has displayed; he would be putting the needs of his country and his party above his own. More importantly, a Gore/Obama ticket would almost certainly present the most formidable team the Democrat’s could field in 2008. Indeed, a Gore/Obama victory would put the final nail in the coffin of the catastrophically tragic Bush era.

Presidential campaigns need to articulate grand narratives. Hillary has failed to do this. Indeed, it seems woefully clear that she lacks the capacity to be a figure that educates the public. Gore and Obama, however, are both leaders with the kind of vision and judgement to chart a new course for the United States after the debacle of Bush’s failed presidency. They were the only two major figures in the Democratic Party, incidentally, to speak out forcefully against the Iraq War, the torture and abuse sanctioned by the Bush administration, and Bush’s other abuses of power. Hillary loses my respect when she refers to Obama’s prescience on the war as “just a speech.” Speaking out against the war was an act of political courage, a quality that is difficult to associate with the competent but dismayingly prosaic and politically expedient Clintons.

Electing Gore and Obama would signal to the world that America has atoned for the morally hideous aberration of Bush/Cheney. Neither the seventy-one year old McCain or the baggage-saddled Clinton has quite what it takes to turn the page the way Gore and Obama would.

Sphere: Related Content

The Media and the Decline of Democracy

Plato equated democracy with mob rule. Watching the media debase the level of political discourse by constantly shifting debate and discussion to the lowest possible level it is not hard to feel the United States has entered a state of terminal senescence. The country is facing some of the steepest challenges in its history – the ongoing threat of terrorism, the disastrous war in Iraq, a housing/credit meltdown that threatens the foundations of the financial system, and an energy/climate crisis that will almost certainly destabilize the planet – but commentators are harping on flag pins, comments made by Obama’s pastor, and Hillary’s gaffe about evading sniper fire. Rome is burning, but the clowns that run the media circus can still divert the masses.

The price of oil just hit a new time high ($115 dollars a barrel). Food costs are soaring. And the record trade deficit means America is maxed out; since 2000 we’ve been borrowing against the future simply to sustain a standard of living the country can no longer afford. The plummeting dollar is a symptom the U.S. is basically insolvent, but Tweedledee (George Stephanopolis) and Tweedledumb (Charles Gibson) still think it’s appropriate to ask candidates Clinton and Obama to make a pledge not to raise taxes on working Americans.

How inane can you get! The Bush administration’s laissez-faire economic policies have led to the largest transfers of wealth in world history as U.S. consumers are now in hock to some of the most unsavory and anti-democratic regimes on the planet (China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia), but the media mavens are trying to extract promises from politicians not to raise taxes on the middle class. What about the dwindling value of the dollar, interest to service America’s debt, and soaring energy/food prices are a stealth tax that Americans will be forced to pay because of the Bush administration’s imprudent policies? Americans are poorer for eight years of Bush’s borrow and spend economics, but they haven’t seen anything yet. The bill for the debacle in Iraq, which by some estimates will cost every American family $50,000, is only beginning to come due.

The credit crisis is just the tip of an iceberg that has capsized the American economy. Housing prices may decline a further 30 percent before things bottom out. This process may take several years, which means the days of homeowners using their homes as ATMs is over for the foreseeable future.

Against this dire economic backdrop John McCain has called for giving Americans a “tax holiday” on gasoline during the summer months. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton promises to investigate oil company profiteering. Neither proposal addresses the inconvenient truth that surging world demand for oil, coupled with the declining dollar, and the increased nationalization of petroleum companies across the globe, have created the perfect storm whereby Americans will have to pay a greater share of their wealth to foreign oil producers. American oil companies have been steadily losing their market share -- a trend the Bush administration hoped to reverse with the invasion of Iraq – and recycled petro-profits are now filling the coffers of Sovereign Wealth Funds in Venezuela, Russia, and the Middle East. Ignominiously, failing and ailing financial firms, such as Citigroup, are now begging these SWF to rescue them.

President Bush’s mishandling of the economy may rival even his mismanagement of the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina. It is now clear that the kind of deregulation and laissez-faire economics extolled by conservatives has brought the financial system to the brink of catastrophe. Free markets work, but only when there is some minimal government oversight. When the financial system is tasked with policing itself you inevitably get insider deals, mountains of bad debt that the taxpayers are expected to assume, and carnivorous CEOs carving up companies and feeding on the spoils, but leaving shareholders and laid off employees nothing but the remains. The CEOs at Bears Stearns and Countrywide did not create value so much as reallocate value, to themselves.

The next American president is going to have to institute measures that will restore credibility and integrity to the financial system, establish a new social compact with the American people (especially a minimum healthcare package), and reinvigorate America’s manufacturing capacity. Put simply, over the last several decades finance became the country’s growth industry as wizards on Wall Street found new ways to package debt, displace risk, and skim money from Main Street. Unfortunately, their financial alchemy did not create new wealth, so much as create the illusion of spectacular riches that would later vanish into thin air once they collected their conjuring fees.

The United States is roughly in the same position as the Spanish Empire under Phillip II. Attempts to plunder gold from the New World could no more keep Spain’s debt ridden empire afloat than the Bush administration’s efforts to establish U.S. hegemony over Iraq’s black gold. As the decline of the Spanish Empire shows, a country known primarily for manufacturing debt cannot thrive economically.

The presidential candidates need to articulate their economic philosophies and explain how they plan to revive America’s economic competitiveness. Unfortunately, the mainstream media would rather focus on trivial matters, such as Hillary’s sniper gaffe or comments made by Obama associates. This is not to say that such questions should not be asked at all, but rather that the media risks turning a presidential contest into a mud wrestling festival if it focuses on trite distractions instead of substantive issues. Needless to say, an army of right-wing pundits is mobilizing to ensure that a flap over flag pins, guilt by association, and other time-tested techniques designed to portray Obama as un-American, will trump the War in Iraq, the Bush recession, and eight years of an inept Republican administration.

The country is going to be in even bigger trouble if the right’s sophistry is able to deflect attention from the moral, economic, military, and strategic carnage conservative rule has wrought. It is positively chilling the way media bloviaters like Sean Hannity are able to manipulate and twist events, situations, and statements in ways that exploit the ignorance and a prejudices of an audience looking for objects upon which they can fixate their anger. Obama’s much maligned comments about small-town voters being “bitter” are right in this regard: if conservative commentators can succeed in making the 2008 election about god and guns they’ll almost certainly prevent the kind of debate the country needs to have to solve its problems.

Sphere: Related Content

Interview with Bill Clinton: Is Hillary a Monster?

Bill Clinton has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of his wife, Hillary. Deconstructing Demagogues sat down with the former president to get his take on the 08 race, but before doing so we slipped a little truth serum into big guy’s Diet Pepsi. After all, Bill has a habit of stretching, bending, and twisting, the truth with as much flexible gusto as a gymnast on steroids. What follows is transcript of William Jefferson Clinton at his unfiltered, unvarnished, and unguarded best.

Deconstructing Demagogues: Thank you very much, Mr. President, for taking the time to sit down with us.

Bill Clinton: Hey, good to be here with you, and thanks so much for donating $11. 19 cents to my library, every little bit helps. Say, do you have anymore of those glazed donuts with the strawberry jelly inside?

Deconstructing Demagogues: I’m afraid you ate the last dozen, Mr. President, but you are welcome to polish off the rest of my frozen slurrpy.

Bill Clinton: Thanks, man. Campaigning always seems to whet my appetite.

Deconstructing Demagogues: Speaking of campaigns. An Obama advisor, Samantha Power, recently described Hillary as a “monster,” what is your response?

Bill Clinton: Well, she’s right, but only when Hillary gets mad, which thankfully is just once or twice a week these days. You know, everyone has his or her dark side. And with Hillary you just got to accept that every once and a while she’ll get so incensed and wrathful that you expect to see her eyes pop out her head.

Deconstructing Demagogues: What’s that like?

Bill Clinton: Well, it’s a little bit like watching the character played by Linda Blair in film The Exorcist, but Hillary does it all without special effects, scary make-up, or even acting skills.

Deconstructing Demagogues: Wow! But what do you think of Samantha Power? Was it right for her to resign based on the fact that what she said was true?

Bill Clinton: Samantha Power. She’s that cute redhead isn’t she? She could brief me anytime, if you know what I mean.

Deconstructing Demagogues: There’s been a lot of speculation about a so-called “Dream Team.” If Hillary wins the nomination do you think she’ll pick Obama as her vice-president?

Bill Clinton: I’m afraid I’m going to be the vice-president, but I’m not supposed to say anything publicly.

Deconstructing Demagogues: some would say you already were the Vice-President, but that raises another interesting question: what are we going to call you if Hillary is elected? Should we call you the First Laddie?

Bill Clinton: I’m kind of partial to the First Cad, but that’s off the record. If Hillary hears me say anything like that I’d be better off spending the next eight years at Guantanamo as an Enemy Combatant!


Deconstructing Demagogues: Let’s talk about the campaign. A lot of observers say that Hillary’s ad showing her answering the phone at 3am convinced voters in Texas and Ohio that she’s more qualified to handle a crisis. But a lot of Obama supporters believe the ad was fear mongering. What did you think about the ad?

Bill Clinton: To tell the truth, I thought the 3am ad was pretty hopeful. When I was president that’s was about the time that I got calls from that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, and I was always hoping I’d reach the phone before Hillary. So in that sense, I think that ad was pretty positive.

Deconstructing Demagogues: I see. One final question. Like all former presidents you’ve been reluctant to criticize the current occupant of the oval office. Many observers feel President Bush will go down in history as easily the worst chief executive in our country’s history. What do you think about his performance as Commander-in-Chief?

Bill Clinton: I think he’s doing a heck of job.

Deconstructing Demagogues: I have the feeling the truth serum I slipped you before the interview is starting to wear off. But I want to thank you for taking the time with us Mr. President.

Bill Clinton: Truth serum. What is this . . . some vast left wing conspiracy. Shame on you Deconstructing Demagogues. You are worse than Ken Starr!

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary and the Politics of Fear

Hillary Clinton is meaner and colder than Vladimir Putin’s mother-in-law as she spends her winter ice fishing in a Siberian igloo. It may just be me, but Hillary comes across like an ice-princess that could make Lady Macbeth seem warm in comparison. Her latest gambit is to remind voters of the one American public figure who is less popular than she is, namely the priggish prude Kenneth Starr. It’s a nauseating attempt to garner sympathy, distract voters, and slime Obama all at the same time.

It pure chutzpa for Hillary to compare Obama to the GOP’s Inspector Javert just because the Obama campaign focused attention on the fact that Clinton’s have yet to release their tax returns or key documents from their White House years. I guess Obama must be part of a vast left-wing conspiracy, which includes the media, caucus participants, African Americans, and educated voters under fifty that has the audacity to stand in the way of Hillary’s coronation.

The perverse irony, of course, is the fact that a vast right-wing conspiracy – an axis-of-intolerance opposed to John McCain that includes Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter – has endorsed Hillary’s candidacy for their own disingenuous motives. It is understandable, however, that conservatives would gravitate to the former First Lady as she emulates the fear and smear and scorched earth tactics of Rove and Bush.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Hasn't a Ghost of a Chance of Being Elected President

Bill and Hillary remind me of the fleshing eating zombies you might see from a drive-in horror flick; just when you think they are politically dead and buried they return to haunt you. Hillary has always been the Republican’s worst nightmare, but now she is becoming the Democratic Party’s worst nightmare. That’s because she cannot possibly win the Democratic nomination without destroying the Party and dooming its chances in the November election against John McCain. After all, there’s no realistic way she can catch Obama in the pledged delegate count, so her only way to win is to use the so-called super delegates to overturn the will of the majority of Democratic voters. If she does that she’s sure to alienate the constituencies that support Obama (the young, African Americans, and anti-war voters).

Republicans represent close to 40% of the electorate. When you add potentially disenchanted Obama supporters to the four out of ten voters that detest Hillary no matter what she does, then you realize Hillary has little upside and little margin for error. At best, Hilary could hope to win a squeaker against McCain, but in all likelihood independents, late deciders, and disaffected Democrats would probably break for the authentic-seeming senator from Arizona.

As a candidate Hillary has displayed some rather disconcerting qualities; she tends to do well when she goes negative or gets in a whining and self-pitying mode. Her last minute attacks before the Texas and Ohio primaries consisted largely of scurrilous charges. Guilt by association, innuendo regarding Obama’s faith, hearsay regarding Obama’s stance on NAFTA amounted to mudslinging. Put, simply, the Clinton campaign showed no regard for the truth; their only concern was to sully Obama’s image in the minds of the least educated late-deciders (who broke for Clinton almost 2 to 1).

All may be fair in love, war, and politics, but I’m a progressive that’s pretty much disgusted with Hillary. I see her as a triangulating politician, one who displayed abysmal judgement on the Iraq War, but who now uses slogans (“If I knew then what I know now”) to cloak the fact that she did not exercise or display due diligence and wisdom when it came to the most important decision of her political career. Put simply, Al Gore and Barack Obama are the only major figures in the Democratic Party with the courage and sagacity to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning. Both men did not simply give speeches, they spelled out their reasons for opposing the war in detail. And their judgement has proven prescient.

Barack Obama is not merely an inspirational leader. Listening to his stump speech recently I came away with the distinct impression that he is the most substantive politician the country has seen in a long time. This is a leader with a deep understanding of how the challenges America faces are interconnected, how the threat of terrorism, our energy habits, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and global warming are all tied together. Further, he has a vision of how the United States can restore its standing in the world. America is at it best and most persuasive, Obama understands, when we lead by example rather than through force.

Obama is a great communicator because he is a great listener. This is a quality the world is hoping America rediscovers. The Europeans and our other allies are looking to America to lead on a range of issues, such as nuclear non-proliferation, but they are looking for an America that listens to their views and concerns. To lead one must persuade, not just dictate, a lesson completely lost on the Bush administration. Obama is incredibly persuasive because he connects the dots and explains how if we all work together we can accomplish particular goals. His is a bottom-up approach, whereas Hillary (and George Bush) employs a top-down style. With a bottom-up approach, however, more people are invested in your success, which makes for a durable foundation for building social change and achieving national aims.

The Bush administration’s essential irrationality – it’s congenital inability to proffer cogent arguments (its reliance on cliches, false-choices, and ad hoc rationalizations) undermined the aims it pursued. Put simply, the sophistry employed during Bush vs. Gore, the demagoguery deployed in the lead up to the Iraq War, and the rationalizations used to justify torture, illegal wiretapping, and other Constitutional abuses have so eroded the Bush administration’s credibility that it has little public support left.

If Hillary Clinton takes a scorched-earth approach to the Democratic nomination – insisting the super-delegates anoint her even if she is behind in pledged delegates, states won, and the popular vote – she will in fact be emulating the modus operandi of George W. Bush. I can’t help but feel that Hillary’s dipping into the Rove playbook -- playing the fear card -- is a bad omen. At this point I don’t believe Hillary can win the top spot without getting ugly, and if she goes that route she’ll very likely doom the Democrats in November.

Sphere: Related Content

Bill and Hillary's Unexcellent Adventure

Hillary’s Clinton’s campaign has been losing altitude faster than the Hindenburg after it caught fire. Watching the Clinton’s crash and burn has become a national spectator sport fed by the media’s lust to cover the former First Couple’s fabulous flameout. Hillary is going from heir apparent to political has been faster than you can say “Bush/Clinton/Bush Clinton.”

That’s right, a Bush or a Clinton has been on the presidential ballot for the last twenty-eight years. I’m convinced that nominating Hillary is the best chance Republicans have of avoiding the comeuppance they so richly deserve. For years the Clinton’s biggest selling point was the sympathy vote they got from standing up to their political enemies. Now, however, the Clinton’s are in the perverse position of standing a good chance of handing their political enemies a victory if they resort to scorched earth tactics to defeat Obama for the Democratic nomination. Put simply, if Bill and Hillary lose at the polls but then try and snatch the nomination by relying on super delegates and other shenanigans at the convention, then they’ll fracture the party and hand the election to John McCain.

Hillary is losing to Obama for a variety of reasons. Obama is a better candidate. His campaign is better-organized and well run than hers. And voters are finding Obama more authentic than the seemingly ever-calculating Clinton. For instance, every time Hillary has to defend her decision authorizing the disastrous war in Iraq she sounds like an unprincipled politician who can’t bring herself to admit a mistake. Her answer is so formulated – “if I knew then what I know now” – that everyone recognizes it as the ultimate copout to cover a catastrophic misjudgment.

Voters are finding Obama’s clarity – he opposed the war from the very beginning – far more preferable than Clinton’s cloudy obfuscation. After all, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor might also say: “if I knew then what I know now I wouldn’t have cast the deciding ballot that installed Bush/Cheney over the will of the electorate.” But that hardly mitigates the fact that she made a horrendous decision.

There’s not much daylight between Obama and Hillary policy wise, so voters are going with the personality they prefer. Obama represents not just change, but also transcendence in the sense of America regaining and living up to the ideals that make the United States a great country. Hillary, on the other hand, has a proven track record of being a polarizing figure. In many ways, she’s a mirror image of George W. Bush, even if she on the other side of the political spectrum. For instance, both Bush and Hillary exhibit a pathological degree of self-certainty, a congenital unwillingness to concede mistakes, and an attitude that politics is always a zero-sum game.

There are a lot of Republicans and moderates that are looking to punish the Republicans this November. Their distaste for Hillary Clinton, however, may overcome their anger at the GOP, particularly given the fact that no one doubts John McCain’s emotional authenticity. Of course, revulsion at the Bush administration may be so high that even Hillary (a candidate with negative ratings approaching 50%) could squeak by in the general election. However, at this stage Hillary is faced with a daunting if not impossible challenge: how to beat Obama without alienating a coalition made up of traditional Democrats, new voters, independents, and moderate Republicans that see in Obama a breath of fresh political air. Paradoxically, Hillary is now in the unenviable position whereby she can only win the nomination by resorting to tactics that will doom the Democrats in November.

Sphere: Related Content

Endorsing Obama: Restoring and Fulfilling the American Dream

Bill Clinton deserves credit for leaving the country better off following his eight years in the White House. Incomes for working Americans were rising, the federal government was running a $236 billion surplus, and military readiness was at an all-time high. Enter George W. Bush: income gains have stagnated and even dropped, health care costs are soaring, the country has mortgaged its future by acquiring $ 3.5 trillion in debt, and the U.S. military is stretched to the breaking point. Even worse, America’s reputation is in tatters while the threats from nuclear proliferation, terrorism, an unstable Middle East, and a rising China have mushroomed exponentially. The United States has never been so isolated, divided, and drained. The next U.S. president must reverse this trend or America’s influence (and its standard of living) will continue in a steep decline.

The candidate most qualified to restore America’s image, articulate and chart a new course for the country, and offer the visionary leadership we so desperately need is Barack Obama. Put simply, everything I’ve seen from the senator from Illinois suggests that he has the character, judgement, and leadership abilities to move the country in positive and progressive direction.
George W. Bush has tarnished the American brand; essentially making the U.S. synonymous with imperial hubris, torture, pre-emptive war, and incompetence. Barack Obama is the one candidate who can transform America’s image from day one following his election. Restoring America’s soft power (its ability to persuade through ideals and example) is not a superfluous luxury. Rather, it is an essential pillar for projecting America’s values by inspiring other countries to emulate the American model.

For example, with the Bush administration’s hegemonic designs in ruins we are rapidly moving to a multipolar world where a rising China and the E.U (already an economic colossus) can check America’s influence and compete on equal terms. It is true, of course, that neither China nor the E.U. can compete with the U.S. militarily, but each can and will seek to extend its sphere of influence and leverage their economic clout to America’s disadvantage. Competition to acquire energy and natural resources from second and third world countries to fuel first world prosperity will depend on economic inducements and diplomatic suasion, proficiencies that have atrophied under the current administration. Put simply, the next American president will have to manage America in a way that suggests to the average second and third world citizen (be they in Africa, the Middle East, or South America) that the American way and an American partnership has more to offer them than competing models.

After eight years of the Bush administration this is a very tall order, but American prosperity cannot be sustained by America’s military power alone (as Iraq has shown). And America will be unable to sustain its military prowess without restoring its economic health (no, borrowing money to pay for tax cuts is not sustainable as the looming Bush Recession is showing).
The run-up to the South Carolina primary, which Obama won handily, revealed just how uninspiring, divisive, and even venal the Clintons can be. Hillary, if you will, is all prose and no poetry. Like her husband she is smart, competent, and part of the reality-based community. But like Bill, she is more of a policy wonk and a technocrat than a visionary statesman.

To be sure, we need leaders who understand how to operate the levers of government. But even more than that we need leaders who will chart a strategic vision for the United States that will revive our country’s long-term economic fortunes and shape an international order where the rule of law supplants the philosophy that has animated both al-Qaeda and the Bush administration: the notion that might makes right. Put simply, double standards and legitimacy are incompatible. And it is the Bush administration’s double standards – "we have the right to use force to impose democracy, launch preventive wars, and torture suspected terrorists" – that has discredited the United States in the eyes of the world.

Dynasties have a tendency to exempt themselves from the rules that bind everyone else. There is a sense of entitlement, of preordainment, and exceptionalism. These habits of mind are characteristic of political aristocracies. And they have proven fatal for George W. Bush. There is much evidence from Hillary’s campaign and character that she shares a mind-set in common with another heir apparent, George W. Bush: particularly an Us vs. Them mentality, a psychological need for enemies, a messianic self-certainty, and a congenital inability to admit mistakes.

Obama is the un-Clinton and the un-Bush. He is not a polarizing triangulator (Clinton) or a demagogic divider (Bush). Rather, his diverse background contains the seeds of a remarkable personal journey and psychological integration that somehow seems to reflect the collective need of our globalized age. It’s not "Us vs. Them" for Barack, it’s "We are all in this together." That’s the story of his life and what he represents. And it says a lot that the Clintons resorted to the Republican playbook to try and take Obama down.

Is America ready for an African American president? I believe it is and I hope so because I’m convinced he’s the best person for the job of restoring and fulfilling the American Dream.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton's Crocodile Tears?

Hillary Clinton’s voice usually has all the warmth and humanness of a computer-generated telemarketer. Her halting cadence, monotonous tone, and bland delivery remind me of the pod people in the sci-fi classic, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. As much as I detest George W. Bush, and everything his administration stands for, I’m not sure I’m ready to vote for someone who acts like a Queen Bee. I can deal with Alpha Males, but Hillary’s stinging stares and venomous glares against her campaign rivals make them appear like male drones about to be devoured.

Hillary’s tears certainly stung Obama’s chances in New Hampshire. But was Hillary’s misty-eyed emotional display spontaneous or a carefully choreographed political calculation? Her words certainly seemed finely calibrated to appeal to a demographic that would prove crucial to her victory, namely young, single working mothers. For instance, Hillary expressed her presidential aspiration in terms any waitress, hygienist, or sales clerk could identify. "It’s not easy," Hillary began, "but some of us put ourselves out there everyday . . . against great odds . . . because we care about our country, each one of us."

Substitute the word "family" for "country" and many single moms could imagine themselves saying exactly the same thing. Hillary’s masterstroke was to frame her campaign in the political arena as the same kind of struggle working women face everyday. She then added a clever coda: "Some of us are right, and some of her wrong. Some of are ready, and some of us not." Ironically, her presumptuous catchphrase, "Some of us are right, some of us are wrong," is nothing but a kinder, gentler version of Bush’s Manichean slogan (i.e., "you are either with us or against us").

Was Nixon’s "Checkers Speech" authentic or contrived? In a figure as complex as Nixon it may have been both. Perhaps it doesn’t matter if Hillary’s campaign-saving emotional display was spontaneous or not, it was effective political theatre in a realm where everyone is an actor to some extent. A lot of voters clearly found Hillary’s emotional display refreshing, and the candidate clearly believes she has found her voice. But it says something about the electorate that what Hillary said was far less decisive than how she said it. After all, when it came to the Iraq War some of us (including Obama) were right, and Hillary was wrong.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons it Would be Great to Have Bill Clinton in the White House Again

10) With Bill and Hillary occupying the White House, the warmongering right-wing nut cases will be forced to focus on regime change here at home rather than abroad.

9) A reality-based series based on Bill’s everyday life – you could call it Sex in High Places -- sure would beat watching reruns of Sex in the City.

8) Bill will put Dick Cheney’s secure location to better use.

7) Bubba's exploits, as documented in a much anticipated follow-up to the Starr Report, will allow me to spend less money every month on online porn.

6) I’d like to see Hillary use expanded executive authority to order the use of coercive interrogation techniques on Bill when he’s caught in the Oval Office broom closet with another White House intern.

5) Eight more years in the White House will allow Bill to screw the Republicans for a long time.

4) Two terms with Bubba won’t bother me since I have a v-chip installed in my TV.

3) Bill has super duper secret plan to change the national anthem to "I Feel Good" by James Brown.

2) After eight years of George Jr., I don’t care about honor and dignity in the Oval Office, I just want someone who knows what they are doing!

1) Hey, if you are a political satirist wouldn’t you want to put Falstaff and Lady Macbeth back on the pedestal of power, if only to get a second chance at knocking them off their perch.

Sphere: Related Content