(It's the waning days of the candidate diaries and I thought, why not?)
For years I have anticipated the last day of George Bush's presidency; fantasized about it, if you want to call it that. I picture a cold but sunny January Inauguration day. Bush looking like a fidgety junior high student in a too-big formal winter coat. He's desperate for the day to end so he can retreat to Crawford and do whatever history's least popular president does with the rest of his life--I couldn't care less. I despise the guy. The enormous crowd is respectful of the day's solemnity but they are still restless, exuberant, eager to celebrate the end of the nightmare. The world is watching.
And then Bush finally takes his place to wait for the new president to take the oath of office.
The faster America and the world put the Bush presidency behind us the better, because it will take decades, even generations, to undo the damage inflicted during these eight years. Some of the wounds (Iraq, global warming) may well be beyond repair. But there is absolutely no time to waste: Not one day; not one second.
Barack Obama is my choice for the first post-Bush/Cheney presidency. I feel that he has a unique global sensibility, intelligence, good judgment and solid, achievable policy proposals. I am in agreement with The Portsmouth (NH) Herald's Obama endorsement:
More than any of the other Democrats in the race, we believe Obama has made the most compelling and persuasive case for his candidacy....All of the Democratic candidates have produced volumes of thoughtful and detailed proposals, and with most, there are only shades of differences between them.
What separates Obama is a positive vision combined with a unique temperament for leadership. He combines the best attributes of competence and political inspiration. He inspires trust that he will make sound judgments.</blockquote</p>
We will have to trust that Obama possesses certain presidential job qualifications, and I do. Has he logged lots of face time with a coterie of world leaders? No. But as the Iowa City Press-Citizen noted in their endorsement of Obama, those meetings are often the easier part of implementing a president's policies--both foreign and domestic:
The hard part is knowing the people -- whether it's those Americans living the relatively average life that he and his wife lived until just a few years ago, whether it's the people who live in the south side Chicago neighborhoods in which Obama was an organizer, or whether it's the people who live in the same isolated Kenyan village as Obama's grandmother.
Perhaps the most highly touted example of Obama's judgment, of course, is his opposition to the Iraq invasion. This topic has been debated endlessly and I have nothing more to add here except to say that this is a dealbreaker for me. I never expect to agree with every move a candidate or president makes, but I won't support a primary candidate who voted in favor of the invasion and I certainly credit Obama's foresight on this issue.
Then there is Obama's much-discussed ability to negotiate, build consensus and find common ground with others. He used this to good effect in community organizing and when he made inroads in the often glacially slow Illinois senate. Some have criticized him for this willingness and pragmatism, somehow pegging it as a weakness. But I'm not sure how Barack Obama--with his unusual name, Kansan mother and absent Kenyan father--could have grown to adulthood and developed any other disposition. His obvious cultural differences forced him out of the usual comfort zone, made him have to trust and connect with people on their turf. In their endorsement of Obama, the Nashua Telegraph said he distinguished himself from the usual politicos:
What's lacking is authenticity, transparency and courtesy. What's lacking (in most politicians) are leaders who, rather than seeking high ground from which they can dispatch their opponents, will seek common ground and common-sense solutions.
I also interpret this as a healthy impatience on Obama's part--the realization that we have much, so much to accomplish and that we had better put our egos aside and get to work. Impatience, in my view, gets a bad rap. I say this as an often impatient, cut-to-the-chase person (ask my husband and kids). But I understand and appreciate give-and-take--what do we need to do to make something happen? How far apart are we? What is negotiable, what isn't? Let's move it along, let's get it done.
It's also very important to me that the next president have some sense of connection to the world. I remember being disgusted that George Bush--with all of his wealth and family connections--travelled little before he became president at age 54! He had none of the limitations that the rest of us have to consider--money, jobs, family concerns--but he was too lazy, stupid and incurious to stray from the standard Bush family-approved stomping grounds. The Boston Globe, in its endorsement of Obama, explains why this is broader worldview is so crucial in the post-Bush years:
The first American president of the 21st century has not appreciated the intricate realities of our age. The next president must. The most sobering challenges that face this country - terrorism, climate change, disease pandemics - are global. America needs a president with an intuitive sense of the wider world, with all its perils and opportunities. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has this understanding at his core.
Some of these reasons I support Obama crystallized when I recently looked back on my first trip to Europe exactly 20 years ago and remembered how it exponentially increased my understanding of the world. And oddly, for some reason I couldn't stop thinking about the then-divided city of Berlin, which I also saw for the first and only time on that trip. I've visited a fair number of places before and since then, but 1987 Berlin still sticks with me almost more than any other place I've ever seen.
The Berlin Wall would fall two years after I saw it. By 1987 restrictions had loosened; people were crossing between East and West Berlin with visas, although armed guards still loomed in towers and at checkpoints (I understand there's now a McDonald's at Checkpoint Charlie). Yet the dreariness and oppression on the East side were still palapable, particularly compared to freewheeling in-your-face West Berlin, a place which pretty much gave a middle finger to Communism. For me Berlin was one of those indelible reminders of the pure luck and randomness of where you are born or live.
One obvious discrepancy: If you were lucky enough to live in West Berlin, for example, you shopped on the Kufurstendamm--a long boulevard that is essentially a big sloppy wet kiss to capitalism and the joys of of luxury shopping (Rolex, Spode, Chanel). But East Berliners--mere yards away, separated by the graffiti-drenched wall--made do with one big department store, Centrum, a hideous example of 60's Communist architecture.
To give you an idea of Centrum's ambience: The paper goods department displayed boxes of coarse plain white stationery right next to a barrel of unwrapped rolls of equally coarse plain white toilet tissue because they were both, I guess, considered paper products. Why doll it up? If you wanted a nicer shopping experience, tough--you should live in West Berlin.
Recently I've thought that the George Bushes of the world would never have been stuck on the "other" side of the Wall; East Berlin, in their view, was for suckers (just like New Orleans during Katrina, or Iraq since 2003) Too bad for you. You didn't have the right connections or know the right people.
But the Barack Obamas--and any just about any Democrat--know that there is no "other"; we can't breathe a sigh of relief that we weren't in the Astrodome or Baghdad. Obama knows how purely fortunate he is to live in the US and this realization fairly radiates out of him. He seems a happy person, a grateful person, someone who wants to solve problems, knowing full well that the solutions might not lend themselves to easy soundbites. Obama impressed the Nashua Telegraph editorial board during their pre-endorsement interview:
During these (editorial board) meetings (with the various candidates), Obama stood out; he thought deeply about the answer to each question we asked him. He spoke neither in safe, pre-scripted talking points nor in divisive polemic. He was able to give nuanced answers to questions without sounding like he was avoiding taking a position.
And he, better than any of the other candidates, was able to define common goals that make for common ground, while debating the issues that divide the country most deeply.
,
So, anyway, back to my Inaugural daydream. The thousands of people gathered in DC are impatient, eager, ready to burst. After Bush takes his place the new president-elect rises to take the oath of office.
He has a background, face and sensibility unlike any previous president. It's a start. We have elected him and the world is, for the most part, ready to at least give us a chance again.
The time is here. The nightmare is over. AT LAST. At long last.
Then Barack Obama steps forward and our future finally begins.