Top Ten Cool Things About Obama’s Victory

10). Breaks down the biggest barrier of all. Having a funny name no longer disqualifies you from becoming president.

9). Obama will have the executive authority to designate Dick Cheney an enemy combatant.

8). Obama vs. Osama: With George W. Bush out of the equation it will be a lot easier to tell the good guys from the bad.

7). I will no longer have to apologize to every international airline stewardess, foreign taxi driver, and Third World hotel clerk for being an American.

6). Obama has the power to appoint Bill and Hillary to the Supreme Court (so we’ll never have to worry about having another Clinton in the White House again).

5). Sarah Palin will have time to fill in for Tina Fey should the star of 30 Rock and SNL need a break from her busy schedule. After all, let’s face it, the Alaska governor has more potential as a comedian than as commander-in-chief.

4). Joe the Plumber’s hopes of parlaying his 15-minutes of fame into a political career or a position in a McCain/Palin administration have gone down the drain.

3). The Axis-of Idiots – Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage – are exposed as impotent, washed-up, useless old farts who can no longer stir up enough angry & ignorant voters to tip an election.

2). Democratic Congress with full investigative and subpoena powers can make George W. Bush’s retirement a living hell.

1). After eight years of enduring “Dubya,” it will be great to have a president who is not a joke for a change.

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

Sean Hannity’s America: The Politics of Hate

Sean Hannity has taken journalism to a level even Joseph Goebbels would have to admire. In Hannity’s hands, insinuation and guilt by association are art forms. Indeed, his ability to make the worse argument appear better is virtually unmatched by any rhetorician I know of. He may be the finest sophist America has. But let’s give credit where credit is due. After all, Hannity’s success depends critically on the virtually unlimited obtuseness of his audience. It takes a rare and exceptional mind to fall for the same fallacies over and over again, but Hannity’s viewers are unvaryingly consistent in their credulity.

How does Hannity manage to pull the wool over the eyes of his audience while viewers flock away from liberal commentators? I believe this has something to do with the fact that the politics of fear and resentment has proven a winning strategy for the right wing in the past. Put simply, for a lot of voters it’s easier to imagine things that make them angry than to envision ways of solving the challenges that make them fearful and angry in the first place. Hannity’s genius, and that of his compatriots, is to deftly turn public figures like Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama into emblems that stir the anxiety and ire of a significant portion of the electorate.

Hannity and his ilk do this by twisting the words, exploiting gaffes, and manipulating images in ways that make candidates they oppose seem foreign, condescending, and disloyal to America. For instance, prior to the 2000 election Al Gore said he took the initiative in creating the Internet (which was true). But this was twisted to make it seem like Gore was claiming credit for inventing the Internet, which was supposed to feed into the notion that the VP was a serial exaggerator. Conservative commentators had a field day with John Kerry’s windsurfing, which they used to pigeonhole him as a flip-flopping elitist.

The tactics Hannity and company are using to disparage Barack Obama are no less inane, but they are arguably more subtle and potentially more pernicious. It is essential to expose the sophistic ploys they use to manipulate public opinion so that the 2008 election is decided on basis of ideas and character, not character assassination.

Hannity and like-minded conservative commentators are determined to paint Obama as not one of us. They have to eschew overt forms of bigotry, of course, so rather than attack Obama directly they resort to guilt by association. For example, there are determined to link Obama to William Ayers. Ayres was once a member of an extremist group that protested the Vietnam War forty years ago by building and setting off bombs. Ayres is now an English professor who happens to live in the same neighborhood as Obama. The two also sat on the board of an anti-poverty foundation. Barack Obama was eight years old when Ayers was engaging in his subversive activities and has condemned the acts in question as “detestable.”

If standards of logic and reason were applied there few if any inferences one could deduce from Obama’s tenuous association with Ayres. However, Hannity and his crowd are experts at twisting facts in order to generate and pin a negative emotional connotation on Obama. Here’s how they do it. First, they deliberately exaggerate Ayers’ moral culpability. They do this by stating that Ayers was part of a terrorist group that set off bombs that killed people, but they fail to mention two important facts: 1) Ayers did set off bombs, but no one was killed. 2) Three members of Ayers’ group were killed when a bomb they were making exploded accidentally, but these are the only deaths caused by the group. In other words, attempts to paint Ayers as public enemy number one are overblown.

Ayers, however, had the misfortune of publishing a book on the same day as 9/11. In it he says, “I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.” Ayers claims that “I feel we didn’t do enough” refers to the efforts to end the war and that he did not mean that he wished he had set of more bombs. In fact, he has acknowledged feeling embarrassed by the arrogance, rigidity, and narcissism he and his compatriots exhibited at the time. Ayers, however, as clearly provided Hannity with the opening he needs to portray him as a terrorist in the same moral category as bin Laden, which he does by depicting Ayers as some one who unrepentantly hates America. After all, as Hannity boils over with righteous indignation, Ayers had audacity to make his “I feel we didn’t do enough” comment on 9/11.

Hannity next step is to keep referring to Ayers as a terrorist while mention the coincidental 9/11 connection over and over again. The idea is to plant in the minds of viewers that Ayers is a guy who attacked America and said these dreadful things on 9/11. Never mind that Hannity has interpreted Ayers’ views out of context -- and in the worst possible way -- while deliberately conflating Ayers and 9/11 in a disingenuous way. The final step of course, is to make the leap that because Obama sat on the same board and knew Ayers that this is the kind of person he surrounds himself.

Hannity also takes a relatively innocuous event, such as Obama’s participation in the Million Man march, and links him to radical black leader Louis Farrakhan. Snippets of Farrakhan are played repeatedly as Hannity makes insinuations about Obama’s associations: There’s a pattern here . . . he’s not who we think he is . . . he’s hiding something . . . etc.

The flap over Obama’s pastor, Reverend Wright, is a variation on this theme. Obama has repudiated the comments his pastor made. But by playing them in an endless loop, and piling one dubious insinuation upon another, Hannity makes several flimsy arguments seem more persuasive than they really are. He does through repetition and the juxtaposition of incendiary images (Rev Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and William Ayers) when discussing Obama. All of this is designed to create and imprint negative emotional feelings towards the likely Democratic nominee. Hannity’s method here is only slightly subtler than the conditioning Pavlov used to train dogs to salivate at the sound of a dinner bell.

Guilt by association, conflation, and other rhetorical slights of hand techniques are the same methods the Bush administration deployed to fallaciously link Saddam to 9/11 in the public mind. Can a well-oiled but increasingly decrepit right-wing propaganda machine hoodwink the American people once again? There’s an old saying, “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.” The American people cannot afford to be fooled again.

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

Patriotism: Love of Country or the last Refuge of Scoundrels?

In simple terms, patriotism means loving and revering one’s country. Patriotism can take many forms. During the Vietnam War, for instance, John McCain found it preferable to endure torture and captivity rather than dishonor the uniform he wore and the ideals he lived by.

The Vietnam War, of course, was controversial. Many of those who protested against America’s involvement in South East Asia were motivated by patriotism too since they believed the war was a betrayal of America’s values. Forty years later, the arrogance and folly of that ill-fated war seem apparent even to its architects (such as Robert McNamara). Criticizing one’s country, too, can be a profound act of patriotism, particularly when a mob of pundits, politicians, and the hoi palloi threaten to stampede the lonely dissenters who have only truth on their side.

One of the solitary dissenters who was trampled in the run up to the Iraq war was weapons inspector Scott Ritter. I remember vividly watching a talk Ritter gave on the eve of the invasion as he emphatically insisted there were no WMD in Iraq. Though I remained agnostic on the question of WMD I opposed the war against Iraq for three reasons: 1) I believed the Bush administration was pursuing an imperial agenda that would prove tragic for the United States. 2) Unless the international community had a stake in the outcome I believed the venture would be more likely to fail than succeed. And 3) I believed the Bush administration did not appreciate the sectarian divisions in Iraq.

The demagoguery used to sell “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was nauseating. Pundits like William Kristol impugned the patriotism of those who questioned the war. Like Cassandra, I felt I sense of foreboding as the Pollyannaish cheerleaders bashed opponents of the war as appeasers and defeatists.

An axis-of-obtuseness (Fox News, the Weekly Standard, the Bush administration) drowned out the few lonely voices of reason that attempted to warn the public. The Shakespearean scholar Harold Bloom recognized in Bush – our “boy emperor” – a figure at once tragic and farcical. Al Gore, a Renaissance (man especially compared to mediocrities that mocked him) spelled out with prescient lucidity the case against launching a preemptive war with Iraq. And Barrack Obama, an up and coming state senator from Illinois, had the wisdom to recognize a bad idea when he saw it.

There were others, of course, such as General Anthony Zinni, who believed Iraq was the “wrong war at the wrong time.” But by and large, those with the greatest zeal and least understanding pitched their case to the lowest common denominator and carried the day: Mission Accomplished.

If only morality (and patriotism) was as simple as the president determined to vanquish evil by spreading liberty to the Four Corners of the Middle East. History, Bush believes, is a Manachean contest between the forces of freedom and tyranny. Bush is a man without a tragic sense. He envisions himself as the man in the white hat in a B western, but he is blissfully unaware that he inhabits a Shakespearean universe where noble intentions can breed moral catastrophes complete with torture chambers and precipitous national declines.

To put it charitably, Bush has about as much business being president as Dan Quayle would have competing in a spelling bee. Watching the Bush administration govern is about as cringe producing as imagining the cast of Hee Haw performing Rigolletto. The discerning reader, incidentally, will note that the dramatic irony in Verdi’s great opera is that the jester kills the very thing he loves most – his daughter – just as Bush has single-handedly destroyed the country he no doubt loves. The ruinous debt, the 7.6% inflation rate, stagflation, the plummeting dollar, the ill-advised and ineptly managed war in Iraq, the botched handling of Katrina, and the numerous torture, abuse, and lawbreaking scandals that have sullied America’s reputation precipitated one of the most precipitous national declines ever witnessed.

I don’t doubt Bush’s patriotism, or Donald Rumsfeld’s, or Alberto Gonazales’ . . . But there is ample evidence to doubt their character and their competence. The philosopher Hannah Arendt observed that the first thing the Nazis did as they consolidated power was to question patriotism of their political opponents. The would-be masters of the universe at Enron pursued a similar tack; anyone who raised doubts about the company’s accounting or business practices was branded as disloyal. Not surprisingly, both Herman Goering and Ken Lay insisted they would be vindicated in the end. To be a fool and rogue at the same time, their countries and companies may crumble, but their unique wisdom allows them to discern what others cannot: thirty, nay fifty years hence History will celebrate the choices and accomplishments they alone could make. It is all about them.

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