Obama is a liberal Democrat who shouldn't surprise liberal Democrats, but he is seen as an outsider and definitely someone who would mix things up somewhat. (Not as much as many people currently believe — you'll see Carter retreads and Clinton retreads among his team in Washington, and other DC established figures — but more so than you'd get with Hillary Clinton as President.)

Do _not_ be surprised if the GOP has Jeb Bush run for the Presidency in 2012 if that party is still as desperate or (conceding to Superdestroyer and observing the 2006-2008 events) in even worse shape than it is now.

I'm not a very partisan person. I like to think I judge candidates on their merits rather than their party. I like to think logic plays a large role in that judgment. But there are times I know it doesn't. A president is not only a “decider”, as Bush so famously put it, but is also a communicator. If you think about it, the presidents that tend to get rated most highly are often those with outstanding oratory skills: Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan. Influence can create reality. Clinton was pretty good at it, too. He had a knack for distilling difficult issues down to their essence. Even Dubbya had his moments in his idiosyncratically fractured way. Back in 2004 I asked the members of my high school alumni site (you wouldn't expect a high school alumni site to be a hot-bed of political discussion, but surprisingly enough it was) to name Bush's greatest singular achievement in his first term. Almost all of the Bush supporters pointed to how he comforted the nation in the days following 9-11. I'd say that's true. Words do matter.

So communication skills is one area where I suspend logic somewhat in making a judgement. Another is entrenchment of the status quo. It may be illogical, but I'm a big believer in mixing things up. Said in another way, I believe in meritocracy rather than aristocracy. In that regard allow me to point out that for the last 20 years the White House has been inhabited by either a Bush or a Clinton. For that reason alone I would find it hard to vote for another Bush or Clinton this time around.

As luck would have it, that's no longer an option. But there's more to it than that. One idea that gets bandied about, especially among those of a more conservative inclination, is the idea of term limits. Considering my stated affinity for meritocracy you'd think I'd be for it, wouldn't you? But the fact is, I have severe reservations in that regard. And the reason is this: the people behind the scenes are already too powerful. That's the real danger. Unless you curb their influence term limits will do more harm than good. Too often elected officials are already just figureheads for the machines behind them. And that's especially true of politicians at the federal level. Clinton was counting on the machine her husband built — the DLC. Likewise, McCain is counting on the machine that Bush built (or perhaps more correctly, Rove). Many people consider the recent reports that McCain's cell phone use has been curtailed by his campaign as just sort of humorous. I consider it ominous. I also consider it ominous that McCain's economic advisers have put out notice that we shouldn't listen to what McCain says, but rather their “clarifications” of what he says. Goodness. Is anyone else disturbed about those kinds of things?

In contrast, Obama appears to have concentrated his power around himself. To be sure, he “borrows” advisers from various places, but so far at least it appears he's the one that's calling the shots. Win or lose, I give him (and his own machine, which he has built from scratch) credit for rendering the DLC essentially irrelevant. And whatever else could be said about the man, Obama is not a lightweight.

Posted by Teh Nutroots | At our sister blog, Buck Naked Politics, Deb Cupples saw off Maureen Dowd’s Hillary-based fiction about the Democratic convention in fine style yesterday. (Maureen Dowd Talks out of her … Ear Again ). Dowd, as we all know, i…

You should really read thru the actual comments you quote in your entry a little closer…
kind of negates what comes after them..

Look, I was a Republican. I think they screwed up the country big time, but I am also relatively well-off. If Democrats screw their own party by switching to Biliary they are showing themselves to be completely incapable of governing. I'll switch to McCain, and enjoy my tax break.

****

Here's da ting. President…um…I mean Presumptive Nominee Obama doesn't have control over whether or not Hillary's name is on the ballot. The democratic delegates, superdelegates and the DNC decide what happens at the convention.

We assign WAY too much power to Obama than he really (doesn't) have.

Delegates and superdelegates, committes and subcommittees have gotten together and decided that keeping Hillary on board is a great backup plan. Just in case the GOP panics in the Fall and decides to break the glass in case of emergency.

I just hope they figure out how to substitute her, if necessary, as late as the night before the election this Fall. Could we put “Obama or Clinton” (all one entry) on the ballots, in that order? I wonder if that could be legally done?

Hmmmm…

If we did that though the GOP might be forced to play its wild card: NSPD-51