China Law Blog

There is a problem and the problem is with both our system and the two candidates. Our system squeezes out the moderates and then when it's time to vote, we panic. I am with you 100% and I love your analogies to faith. We have real problems and neither McCain nor Obama are proposing real solutions.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I am so disillusioned with our choices I am wanting to move to another country. Say, like Kenya where votes are bought but you KNOW votes are bought and there are other channels through which to work.

Don't get me wrong, I'll vote but seriously, am so not hopeful for the future of our country. The gutting of our constitutional rights was just the first step down that path.

Ms. President Palin...

1. You're right: this is indeed off topic.

2. I wholeheartedly agree with your observations.

3. Apparently Carly Fiorina was also deemed unqualified to run HP.

4. Yes, while Hillary looks good in retrospect, we also did not need a continuation of dynastic politics. It could have made an even greater joke of our Constitution than the current administration already has.

5. As unhappy as I am with our choices, in the end, I'll probably vote for the party that at least claims to like our country. (Think about it: one of these parties just seems to hate America. I'll leave it to you to guess which party that is.)

Justin,

Thanks for the support.

mud,

I concur. We Americans have probably gotten too smug.

bigbogboy,

Anyone who attacks EITHER side will get a counter from me. Here's my counter.

Biden: He cheated in law school and it was so blatent he even admits to it. Mr. Biden as plagarist in chief?

Realist,

1. I know. Sorry. Couldn't help it.

2. Thanks.

3. I know. She wasn't terribly good at it. But imagine how badly any of the four would have done.

4. I disagree. We essentially have dynasties as it is, just not necessarily within families.

5. I am guessing you are saying that the Democrats hate our country, but I don't buy that. I believe almost everyone in both parties loves our country. I really do. I usually do not find it fruitful to question motives; I prefer to judge by actions.

Dan -- You are both cynical and right. They are not mutually exclusive.

I disagree more or less completely, for two main reasons:

1. Is there *any* past President about whom you would not say this? You can find far more disparaging things than this said about any past president you might pick (Washington, Lincoln, either Roosevelt would be my own choices).

2. US politics look very different from China, and I've spent this election cycle here. The more I've seen of one candidate (Obama), the more impressed I have been at how he has carefully and systematically put together a team that has functioned well and overcome his party's establishment. From his actions and decisions it seems clear that he's thinking about governing as well as campaigning. This week's events reinforce that judgment. McCain has proposed an ever changing and incoherent set of scapegoats. Obama has blamed the regulatory environment on Bush (only partly correct), but has had the sense to avoid proposing some half-baked solution.

Pick your own example of someone who's done better, at least in modern history, and I bet I can quickly find someone who felt, in more scathing tones than are reflected in the piece you cite, that he was just not up to the job.

FDR may be a too-apt example, he of the balanced budget plan and "second rate intellect."

So far Obama is someone who has done a good job of recruiting good talent and getting the most from them, connecting with large numbers of citizens, and thinking creatively about the problems he's faced. Will an Obama presidency be successful? Impossible to tell, but I like the odds.

Kevin Miller,

Thanks for checking in.

1. I like your first point and I wonder the same thing. But your phrasing is a little strange in that you seem to be asking whether there have been any great Presidents and to that I would wholeheartedly answer yes. My question then becomes whether these guys (there have been no women) were so unimpressive during the election and I just don't know. Certainly though, I would concur with you that Washington, Lincoln, and the Roosevelts were great men and I would add others to that list. I just don't know if I would have been so cynical as to have viewed them differently had we been contemporaries.

2. Would you please send me some of the Kool-Aid you have been drinking. I could certainly use it. I just cannot see things as one-sidedly as you do. Obama has not said anything substantive about our economic crisis beyond "let's kill all the rich and destroy capitalism once and for all." And his attack this weekend where he completely takes what Rush Linmbaugh said (and I hate Limbaugh) out of context and then tries to link it to McCain's hating Hispanics was hateful and below the belt. The WSJ does an article on how many Hispanic leaders who supported Hillary have come out for McCain and Obama counters with this ethnic-baiting ad. More than anything else, I would like to see our leaders not try to increase racial tension for votes. I would like to believe Lincoln and Washington and FDR would have been above such horriblly devisive pandering.

Just two words on the difference between a person worthy of being CEO against a person worthy of being in the whitehouse.

Dick Cheney

Equally dismayed with our political choices presented to our country where I have been entertaining the exact same thought as you of just writing in Hillary. Yet, I don’t want my vote to be frittered away so a choice had to be made. My uncertainty of which to vote for was cleared in the last week or so upon learning more of Palin. I, of all people, would love for an intelligent and worthy woman to help redirect our country. But, I feel she was simple chosen as a prop for more of the same type of administrative governing. She does not in my mind, at this time, have the seasoning needed to be one heart beat away from the presidency. McCain blew it for me when he could not remember how many homes he owns. This can either to be taken two ways, one, his age and health are impairing his clarity of thought, or, two, he is so out of touch with the majority of our countries population how could he possibly govern to move our country in a better direction for all. As for Obama I am clearly disappointed in how he has run his campaign and stances taken by him. For Biden, feel Obama missed the boat by not thinking of what the country needs instead of his ego by neglecting the best choice of bring Hillary on board. Agree with you Biden is just not the type of person I want for VP. Yes, Hillary has baggage; but, the opportunistic experience she holds would only benefit our country. She already knows how the game is played and would not need a year to get up to speed. God knows we need someone to get into office to do something about the mess that has been made over the last eight years. Seriously, there might be a small majority out there who are better off. With the bank failures and near depression foot path we are on now I don’t think they are really all that better off either. (Proud to say I never voted for either Bush)

Unfortunate as it is our destiny as a country does seem to be left to folly. To address your point of do we need to do something to change this? The answer is a resounding YES! In my humble opinion the primaries need to be orchestrated to occur as one national vote. Dare I propose that we have two sets of national elimination primaries to provide better choices? Also, television and other broadcasting advertisements should be free (public service announcement credit), reducing the advantage to the rich, and measured evenly amongst candidates within each state not allowing for an overage. This would provide an even playing field for exposure by all candidates. If these types or other changes would be introduced to our election process for president I feel we would have more viable options to choose from. Allowing our country to feel empowered whereby reduce the feeling you have so concisely expressed today.

Who has my vote…Obama. Why? Because I believe he will try to put our country on the path of less dependency of foreign oil and pay attention to what mother earth is shouting from her mountain tops. Plus, believe he will, in some way, be able to see what the small and less fortunate population groups are experiencing allowing a whisper of their needs to enter into his administration. Does he own magic fairy dust? No, I don’t expect he can do much in 4 years except remove the pressure bandage from the wound and stitch it up. It will take much longer to get back to the days of a balanced budget and completely stop the literal and metaphoric bleeding of our country.

dedlam,

You have my respect. I am always impressed by those who can make a point well with extreme brevity. I concur, though Cheney is so bad as VP, I really wonder how good he was as CEO.

A lot of Americans, if not most, really are that stupid. "But wait, I'm American, and I'm not that stupid." Well, you're reading a blog, and most Americans don't read blogs or read much at all. Most Americans watch TV. Most Americans want the easy answer. Most Americans don't understand financial instruments, so they don't understand the mess we're in. Most Americans don't understand that they should have never qualified for a mortgage based on their income from their job at Home Depot. Most Americans don't understand why debt expansion alone is not a good long-term growth strategy. Most Americans don't understand the huge dangers of expanding the money supply too quickly. Most Americans have never learned basic macro or micro-economics. Most Americans have never studied economic history.

Most Americans don't want to face personal responsibility for their lives or their country. Most Americans want to blame the other guy. It's a lot easier. Turning off the TV and figuring out what's really going on is too difficult and too frightening.

If I weren't so lazy, I'd go open up my copy of Tocqueville. But 'America's Top Model' is coming on in ten minutes, and I want to see who made the cut.

Collette,

I am impressed. Truly. Your arguments for supporting Obama over McCain are so cogent, I can tell you have not been drinking Kool-Aid. I too do not want my vote frittered away, but since one vote (especially in WA state) does not matter, maybe a Hillary protest vote does make the most sense. I really like your Hillary analysis. She does have baggage, but we know pretty much what all that baggage is. I have a sinking feeling we are going to keep learning about Obama's baggage for years if he is elected. As for McCain, I see his worst baggage being his temperament. If you want to legitimately compare him to Bush, it would be on that. I just don't see him as thoughtful enough and the process by which he picked Palin only adds to that. I too certainly wish we had someone who could take over on day one. I just read an article on how Bush has changed so much in the last couple of years and that only reinforced for me the importance of experience.

I wish I could comment on your ideas for improving the system, but I feel my lack of knowledge regarding the system precludes me from doing so.

I completely agree with you that we must become less dependent on foreign oil, for security reasons, if nothing else, and I think Obama is the better choice for that, though every time he claims doing so will create ten million new jobs, I have to stifle my gag reflex.

Thanks a bunch for giving us your thoughts.

Bill,

You raise a lot of valid points, in a somewhat tongue in cheek way. I like that.

Most Americans, myself included do watch TV. So what? Doesn't everyone want the easy answer? One of the things I am always telling clients is that the simplest way to do something is usually the best way.

I agree with you on the following:

"Most Americans don't understand financial instruments, so they don't understand the mess we're in. Most Americans don't understand why debt expansion alone is not a good long-term growth strategy. Most Americans don't understand the huge dangers of expanding the money supply too quickly. Most Americans have never learned basic macro or micro-economics. Most Americans have never studied economic history."

I disagree with you that "Most Americans don't understand that they should have never qualified for a mortgage based on their income from their job at Home Depot."

I am not sure whether to agree with you on the following:

"Most Americans don't want to face personal responsibility for their lives or their country. Most Americans want to blame the other guy. It's a lot easier. Turning off the TV and figuring out what's really going on is too difficult and too frightening." There is certainly some of that here, unfortunately.

"If I weren't so lazy, I'd go open up my copy of Tocqueville." I open mine up every couple of years and never cease to be amazed at how accurate it is.

"But 'America's Top Model' is coming on in ten minutes, and I want to see who made the cut." I just finished watching Project Runway, which I had on my DVR and I think the only reason "Suede" was kept on was because his name is "Suede" and he has a blue streak through the middle of his head. That dude is so gone by next week, even my 11 year old is calling it.

Dan,

It takes just one person to make a difference in anyone’s life. So too does one vote make a difference no matter what state you live in. I needn’t remind you of the last two tainted presidential elections where questionable occurrences made for a sour taste in many mouths. Every vote counts especially where I live, WI. Respect your decision for the protest vote…who knows you might start a trend. Wish I could join you, wholeheartedly I do, but, I know my one vote will carry weight even though it is one vote of out of many. (Of course, if a grass roots movement to write in Hillary were to start at a national level my vote would be hers) I am flattered that someone as intelligent and insightful as yourself was impressed by my diligence in vetting whom I feel most worthy of the privilege for directing the future of our country, I thank you.

Frankly, every year we hear from citizens disgruntled with government and anxious for change. What rarely results from this is a devoted participation in public service.

Whether at the local, state, or federal level, we cannot expect government to change for the better as we envision it without our particiaption in government's institutions. Voting is the most fundamental way of participating. When we feel government has failed us, what excuse do we have to complain if we do not at that moment devote ourselves to an aspect of public service to bring about positive change?

We don't have any excuse.

Dan

Hillary Clinton ran a completely dysfunctional campaign consumed with internal squabbling among different factions, and then she went onto squander 200 million dollars while putting her campaign 20 million into debt.

Thats fine if you think Obama is an empty suit, but I find it hard to justify that HRC would be any better. Obama has shown that his managerial skills, while facing adversity several times in this campaign, are far superior as compared to HRC's.

As far as economic rants, please. HRC was ready to lead a torch carrying mob against NAFTA.

Dan,

I am not about to attempt to answer all of your questions, but I do think it's very hard to measure a president by the person alone b/c presidents simply don't run the country by themselves. Their teams and administrations are vital to run a nation.

If George W. is any example, the nation hasn't completely imploded during his stay at the presidency. (how weakened our nation is of course is up for debate) Why? Because he had people helping him out. Paulson, Bernanke, Cheney, Rove, etc. McCain and Obama, much as we see their faults, will have teams of people around them... and hopefully, teams of very intelligent people who are experts in their own fields. (who often taking diverging opinions) So while neither is the "ideal", I don't think either of them will drive our country into the ground either. It becomes more a matter of policy preferences in voting than choosing 1 leader who is absolutely infallible in every way. At least, that's how I see it.

And yes, there are always downsides to a 1 party nation (China), a 2 party nation (us), and other sorts of governments. I still believe that our system is pretty good, though there are times that I wish the US government would act in a way that oversteps its boundaries like China to control its populace. So is our system broken? Maybe. But I don't think there is a perfect form of government out there. We all strive for that, but it just doesn't exist in my mind.

Tom

Collete (ii),

I'm blushing. Thanks.

Nice sentiment, but empirically, you are wrong. One vote virtually never matters. In fact, political scientists often point out that, on one level, voting is irrational because one vote almost never matters. Maybe a protest vote would matter more?

Shawn in Tokyo,

I really don't know what you are talking about. It sounds like you have pulled something from somewhere which really doesn't have much applicability to the discussion. I did not say I was disgruntled with government. I said I am bothered by our choices this time around for the presidency and I am wondering if our system of picking the candidates still works. That is very different from being unhappy with the entire government. I am not even seeking change so much as I am seeking decency and competence.

Voting is important but voting just to vote might be just another way of adding to the problem.

david,

And that is exactly what is part of the problem. We equate the running of a campaign with the ability to run the country when, in fact, there is no evidence there is any connection between the two. You are right about Hillary and NAFTA and that troubled me. I don't think Obama is an empty suit. He's not an empty suit. He's far too smart for that. No, he troubles me because he seems to not really believe in anything other than himself.

Tom,

I don't like either McCain or Obama, but I also do not think either will be a disaster if elected.

When I question our system, I am not questioning democracy or even the party system so much as I am questioning how it is that our candidates get chosen and what they then have to go through in the general election.

1. Not an American so not in a position to comment on this but if the present political system is the same which gave us so many great American presidents and good times in the world, then I think it is not broken, just require some tweaking to suit modern audiences.

2. The main problem with the presidential race is that it is a 2-horse race. I just beat the other fellow and I win, right? Anything he can do, I can do better. If I can't then I will just simply fault the other guy's policy. Something you won't see in a one-party or multi-party country.

3. A divided government may churn up more issues like coalitions and infighting among the coalitions. A tempting idea at first but more problems for the average voter who already have difficulties differentiating between the Democrats and Republicans.

4. There's a problem. But then again, there's a problem with every nation out there.

There's no perfect system because we live in an age where news travel and transit to anyplace in the world is a flight away. The grass is always greener on the other side, yet we don't see the whole field of grass covering our backyard.

Is our political system broken? If so, can it be fixed and how?

I am amazed how rarely any serious American commentator suggests amending the constitution to reduce the power of the president.

1) Who has the power to make war? On the face of it the constitution is fairly plain about this, but in reality the president seems able to commit the US to war unchecked.

2) Why are elections only held every four years, instead of as and when they are needed? Four years between elections is no bad as a maximum time between elections, and a minimum of a year or two is also reasonable, but certainly there is no reason why Americans should have to wait to remove a deeply unpopular presidency if they are so inclined.

3) Why doesn't the congress have the power to deliver a vote of no-confidence in the president? As it is he can only be impeached if found guilty of actual wrong-doing, an incompetent president who commits no crime cannot be removed from power.

Outside the written constitution, there is also the issue of electoral districting. The fact that a shift of as much as ten percent in voting results in a net change of only a handful of congressional seats surely shows that something is deeply wrong.

I think that the majority of Americans realise that there are problems with the American system which need to be addressed, but no-one within the party/political system wants to address them. Instead of change, the idea of 'divided government' comes to the fore - but this is a pretty lame way of regulating government.

Carly Fiorna, her "qualifications" did not keep her at HP and her boardroom shenanigans do not qualify her to comment on leadership. The lack of executive experience is an issue, but unless you are advocating that we change to a different political ideology, which some of your readers have, this is the choice the American people have given themselves.

It is clear that you and many of those who commented have a superior understanding of the malaise which confronts us, but forgot to share your magic formula with the rest of us still huddled in the dark. Since executive experience is not on the table, maybe looking at the character and experiences of the candidates is better than this footless griping. If you want something else, propose a solution or better yet step up and offer your leadership. Doesn’t the world already have enough self-righteousness back patters venting hot air? Have we become a nation of discontented commentators who forget that democracy is not only a right; it’s a privilege and a responsibility which goes beyond a few wise cracks from the peanut gallery?

I'm looking forward to the day that Americans are mostly intelligent people and can choose a respectable and intelligent person to run the country. The sad reality is that I probably will never see that day. I trust most CEOs as much as I trust the average politician. I don't want any of them having a say in my life or anyone else's.

I'm so disgusted, I still don't know which jackass to choose.

I find your site really interesting, thankyou. I am currently attempting to increase my academic knowledge for accounting, finance and law (fairly late in life!). I will be bookmarking your site. Keep up the great discussion
Clare

I for one retain a good deal of optimism, because no matter which one wins, he will be a definite improvement over the schmuck we've had for the last 8 years!

Enjoyed the Kool-Aid remark, of course, but I'm probably as worried about the future of the U.S. as anyone. Obama could certainly be a disaster, and he could even more likely be someone who doesn't live up to his promise (think JFK, Bill Clinton or, for that matter, GWB although he might belong in the disaster category).

His campaign has not been perfect, but I have been impressed by an ability to think ahead that is pretty rare among his peers. Here are two examples: 1) The European trip and particularly the Germany speech is something that clearly would not help at the time, but will be important should he be elected. The US needs to reset its relations with other countries, and this is one area where evidence that the US President is popular is likely to make a difference.

2) Choosing Hillary would probably have helped with the election but would probably be a huge hindrance in governing. Your commenters illustrate how much pressure there was to make that choice, so let me briefly say why I think it would have been such a bad choice, although I realize it risks reopening old wounds. Brad Delong provided a fairly candid description of how she handled the Clinton healthcare debacle -- http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001600.html -- that is echoed by a friend who was part of her task force. Bill Clinton was elected with a mandate to provide a system of universal health care, control of both legislative chambers, and a Senate Republican leader (Bob Dole) who was sympathetic. She blew it by putting too much faith in one man (Ira Magaziner, in this case), not listening to dissenting voices, and not reaching out to the people she'd need to help her accomplish her goals. That was a while ago, yet it seems to me that she replicated those problems in her recent campaign. Finally, she read Doris Kearns Goodwin's great book "Team of Rivals" and used it as a warrant for not dealing with the nearly mortal feuds among her advisors.

I think Hillary Clinton would be a better President than Vice President, but I also think she's probably most effective in her current position.

The U.S. is facing problems as daunting as those we faced in the immediate post-Vietnam period, and I'm not sure we'll be as blessed as we were then with stupid adversaries.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it's all we have to go on. Going on that, I think there is a clear contrast between the available choices.If this be Kool-Aid, make the most of it.

Back to the point of prior Presidents who "pass the test" - could you possibly name one from your lifetime? I suspect that common assessments of presidential greatness can only occur legitimately in a history book perspective.

Hi All,

I do actually believe that both Obama and McCain have what it takes to lead the nation. You have probably seen from my other comments that I strongly dislike McCain, but I don't feel that he's incompetent. Palin on the other hand...Yikes.

Also, in a two horse race, you have to do a lot of pandering to get the votes you need. Some folks here seem shocked that American elections feature style over substance; when has that not been the case? I think the important thing is to evaluate what type of pandering is the scariest and least productive: Appealing to working class voters who are seeing the short end of the stick economically (Obama), or kissing up to religious zealots who want to ban abortion, oppress gays and teach in school that Jesus rode on dinosaurs (McCain)

Ask yourself, which one is more frightening?

I think the issue here is that most people who read this blog (or contribute to it) are educated professionals and that means that most of us are necessarily out of touch with Joe and Jane Sixpack (myself included). Even if we come from humble origins, it's easy to forget the challenges we once faced and that those struggles will forever burden those who cannot escape them.

Overall, our system is still better than China's. At least we have the freedom to choose the lesser of two evils!

WhiteDuskRed,

1. "Not an American so not in a position to comment on this but if the present political system is the same which gave us so many great American presidents and good times in the world, then I think it is not broken, just require some tweaking to suit modern audiences." I think you are right.

2. "The main problem with the presidential race is that it is a 2-horse race. I just beat the other fellow and I win, right? Anything he can do, I can do better. If I can't then I will just simply fault the other guy's policy. Something you won't see in a one-party or multi-party country." I think you are right.

3. "A divided government may churn up more issues like coalitions and infighting among the coalitions. A tempting idea at first but more problems for the average voter who already have difficulties differentiating between the Democrats and Republicans." I like divided government. Makes it more like a parliament, I think.

4. There's a problem. But then again, there's a problem with every nation out there. You are right.

"There's no perfect system because we live in an age where news travel and transit to anyplace in the world is a flight away. The grass is always greener on the other side, yet we don't see the whole field of grass covering our backyard." You are probably right, but this is the third straight election where I feel the American people are not getting a candidate they really want.

FOARP,

Whoa, whoa, whoa. All of your suggestions make sense, but messing with the Constitution is something to be avoided at almost any cost. My concerns are not so much with the elections as with the primaries.

Dan

I never suggested that we should pick presidents purely based upon how well they run their campaigns, however, the fact is we never know exactly what type of president a candidate a will make until they actually are sitting in the oval office. Running a campaign and campaigning style are a piece of the puzzle.

What I don't understand is why you think Hillary is a superior candidate to Obama. Their policy positions are nearly identical. The real difference is that Hillary is a hugely polarizing figure. 60% of the electorate think she is dishonest, and I don't believe that she would ever be able to get anything done. I think that Obama has the judgement and intellectual capacity needed to deal with complex problems, an attribute the current president clearly does not have.

Lastly, I have to throw out another instance of Hillary's economic populist b.s. since that is the type of thing which has made you so dissatisfied with the two nominees. Her proposal of a "gas-tax" holiday this past summer was pandering at its worst. If you want to vote for a candidate who actually knows what's going on and who speaks the truth, then I suggest you write-in Ron Paul.

Dan,

I think what people constantly underappreciate is the role that the President has as not only head of government, but also head of state. When I look back at the presidencies of Kennedy and Reagan, I see two men that perhaps didn't have the technocratic ability of Ford, Clinton, or even Nixon. However, both had an intangible quality about them - a charisma that enabled them to truly be leaders of a nation as large an diverse as ours is. Reagan's foreign and economic policies were a mixed bag, but to be cliche, did he not "make America believe in itself again"?

To this end, this is why I support Obama. If (god forbid) another major terrorist attack happened on our soil, who would you want up there to address the nation in a time of crisis? The answer, to me, is obviously Obama.

This isn't to say that I love all of Obama's policies, or even the majority of his rhetoric. But let's be completely honest here - while Obama might not be up to the job of engineering RTCII, that's the job of the Treasury secretary, not the President. George W Bush also wouldn't be able to work his way around a derivatives book, but that's why we have Hank Paulson (a capable technocrat doing his best in a bad situation, in my opinion). In this respect, I trust that either Obama or McCain would appoint a quality cabinet.

One last point. Yes, elections are silly. They are not only a simplification of policy, but a CARTOON of policy. There are things that I dislike about both candidates' campaigns, but it's worth keeping in mind that they're both trying to get election. To the educated, every candidate looks like a loser. But it's not your vote they need to get, it's the average American, who Bill characterized so eloquently. As election day draws nearer, the rhetoric will only get more ridiculous. My advice: stay away from the rat race, you'll only start to hate both of them more and more. You have all the information you need to cast your vote, just tune out all the bullshit.

Once the election's over, then it'll be time to have serious policy discussions again. Sorry, but c'est la vie.

ehtangen,

I think you failed to read my post carefully enough on the issue of none of the four being qualified to be CEO of HP. I said I did not think that was even relevant and it isn't. Running the country is very different from running HP and that was what Fiorina was trying to get across as well.

You say "this is the choice the American people have given themselves" but I think that is part of the problem. I don't think the "American people" pick the candidates so much as money and the parties do and they we are told to deal with it. For the last two elections, the Democrats (of which I count myself one) have given us two incredibly liberal candidates on the fringe (at least in this respect) of the Democratic party. I think Kerry was the most liberal senator and I know Obama is (his voting record puts him to the left of avowed socialist Bernie Sanders!). This is our system and we have to deal with it, I know, but at some point should we not rise up against it? And why is rising up against the system whining? I actually think doing nothing is the problem, not the complaining.

"It is clear that you and many of those who commented have a superior understanding of the malaise which confronts us, but forgot to share your magic formula with the rest of us still huddled in the dark." If I came across that way, I apologize. But I think your attempts to stop a legitimate discussion cause you to come across as thinking you have all the answers. I posed a lot of questions to which I will quickly admit I do not have the answers. All I know is that if you scratch most honest people deeply enough, it is hard to find someone who really likes either candidate and the polling says that as well. Now, having said this, I want to reiterate that I do not think either is a disaster and I am pleased that both McCain and Obama are respected by 60 percent of the electorate (that's what one large poll recently revealed).

"Since executive experience is not on the table, maybe looking at the character and experiences of the candidates is better than this footless griping." I have looked at the character and experiences of the candidates and I believe (though I hope I am proven wrong) neither are what this country needs.

If you want something else, propose a solution or better yet step up and offer your leadership. Doesn’t the world already have enough self-righteousness back patters venting hot air? Have we become a nation of discontented commentators who forget that democracy is not only a right; it’s a privilege and a responsibility which goes beyond a few wise cracks from the peanut gallery?

Chinamatt,

Seems we agree on the results, but disagree on the cause. I think the problem lies more with the parties and the media picking for us, rather than the picks we would make under a better system.

Clare,

Thanks.

Janus,

The odds are certainly with us....

Kevin Miller,

I admire your faith and I wish I were not too cynical to share in it, but one allegedly great speech does not a president make. Until they were taken out of the game, Clinton and JFK were living up to their promise. Those two had the ability to unite our country. So far, Obama and McCain have shown only the ability to divide. I completely understand why Obama did not choose Hillary. His pride cometh before the country and winning, and to a certain extent I don't blame him. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results," but it is a very good indicator and what we have is a candidate who has never really done a thing to indicate he is ready to be president and another one whose claim to fame is being a maverick and maverickness is not what we need right now. I mean come on, even Hillary had to say Obama was not ready. BTW, Palin clearly is not ready either. Biden clearly is.

Matt,

History does smooth things out, I agree, but since WWII, I would list FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Reagan and Clinton as superb presidents. I would list Gerald Ford and Bush I as decent. I would list Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon as complete disasters. I think we need to wait a few more years to judge Bush II fairly, but at this point, I would put him in with Jimmy Carter. Had the democrats put up someone a little more mainstream than Kerry, we would never have had Bush's second term. Now, in what appears to be a giant f-ck you to all but the far left, we have been given just about the only senator to the left of Kerry. Something is wrong. Everyone (both Republicans and Democrats) knows that if the Democrats had put up anyone even just a bit more moderate than Obama there would be no race right now. This election was given to the Democrats to lose and, once again, they may just pull it off.

David,

I agree with you that "we never know exactly what type of president a candidate a will make until they actually are sitting in the oval office" and that is why I still retain a bit of optimism.

Hillary is superior to Obama precisely because she offered the gas tax break. She (along with Bill and really through Bill) understands what Americans want. Say what you will about Bill, but he was of the people and that means a lot to me. Many think it ridiculous that we ask with which candidate we would like to go out for a beer with, but I actually think that may be a really good question to ask. Like everyone else, I would have loved to go out for a beer with Reagan or Clinton and like just about everyone else, I would not want to with George II or with Carter. I also would not want to go drinking with Obama or McCain. Obama because he is so damn pompous and condescending and McCain becuase he is so damn shrill. Biden gets the beer vote. I grew up in a very working class Michigan neighborhood and let me tell you neither Obama nor McCain resonate in places like that.

I don't think Hillary and Obama are really identical in policy. Maybe during the primaries they were (though I don't think they were), but we all know that we would prefer Hillary getting the 3 am call and we all know that Hillary's foreign policy experience totally overwhelms Obama's by let's say 20-0. Call me old fashioned, but even in light of the Wall Street melt-down, I still see foreign policy as the sine qua non (sp?) of a president. I find Hillary dishonest, but I find virtually all politicians dishonest, but I find her less dishonest than Obama and, like I said, I have this scary feeling that there is more to come in the Obama department and at least Hillary has been fully vetted. To the extent Hillary is a polarizing figure, I think a large part of that is due to her associations with Bill, her marriage to Bill, and the fact that she is a woman. None of those are a big deal to me and all can be handled.

You overestimate the role of intellect. Reagan was no intellect yet he did a great job leading. Carter was an intellect yet he completely sucked. Truman was an intellectual lightweight, yet a pretty fair President. Bush II's problems are not a lack of intelligence, but rather the way in which he makes his decisions; completely off the cuff. Frankly, that is what scares me about McCain too. I don't see him as being like Bush all that much in terms of policy or temperament, but I worry his decision making is along the same lines.

I respect Ron Paul and Ralph Nadar for the courage and the consistency of their opinions, but their opinions are just too far from mine for me to consider writing in either.

Chris,

I agree with you completely on Reagan and JFK. There is an intangible quality out there -- "a charisma" -- that great US presidents have. Reagan did "make America believe in itself again" while Carter only made us feel "malaise." But the inability of Obama or McCain to "energize" anything more than a small base is proof they lack it. Obama has energized only the educated liberal elites and McCain (Palin actually) has energized the Republican anti-elite core.

You ask the 3 am phone call question and my answer at this point is neither. Sorry.

I also agree with you that it is not the job of the President to be able to engineer Resolution Trust Company II (lucky we have someone good to do that now in Paulson as the previous two Treasury Secretary's under Bush II were not up to this monumental task), but why are you so trusting of Obama and McCain to appoiont the right people for the next go round. There cronies so far certainly do not inspire great confidence.

You do make a really good point though that they are just "both trying to get elected" and any deep analysis at this point will make them both look "like a loser." And your advice is dead on when you urge staying "away from the rat race" or we will "only start to hate both of them more and more."

C'est probablement la vie.

Interesting, though I think for three or four of those you list as superb, there may not have been anything to suggest that they were "up to the task of leading our nation" before they got the job. I think this is true for JFK and especially Reagan (his oratory skills were what made him politically viable initially).

Also, I don't know how much talk of candidates who are far left or far right really contributes to informed discussion. Though some may consider Obama a divisive figure intrinsically because he is on the left, political balancing over longer periods of time is a natural, healthy phenomenon. Since 1980, the United States has been held under the sway of a largely right-wing economic agenda, Clinton included. This agenda is further from the center than Obama is to the left. One of the signs that the time is up on America's 25-year tilt to the right is a Republican "free-trader" who presides over the socialization of America's housing market and much of the rest of its economy (ultimately a variation on the Communists' free market in China). These are the shifting sands that qualify Obama's liberal politics whether you like it or not. A socialized economy has preceded a socialized body politic. The latter is an inevitablity, it's just a matter of how smoothly and agreeably it is ushered in.

Dan - what you said. I'm tempted to vote for Hillary as well. Every day I am reminded that she was the best qualified candidate and that because of DNC manipulation, she was not the nominee. Insult to injury that Obama didn't choose her as his running mate.

The only reason I would vote for Obama is on environmental issues - not that he has a good record on this - he does not (the larger point is, of course, he doesn't have much of a record on anything at all). But I am pretty sure his policies will be better in this regard than those of a McCain administration.

I'm in California. I'll wait and see how close it looks before I decide.

Dan(ii),

Yes, agreed, I am empirically wrong as you have stated. My statements where couched in romanticism and hope. Many believe their one vote will not matter, hence, low voter turn out. Can’t help it the activist in me would hate to discourage anyone from voting for whomever they want.

Dan

All reasonable arguments and only time will tell who is right.

But for my last point I have to take you to task for thinking that the "gas tax holiday" was a good idea. The decreased demand in gas this past summer did enough to deplete our already strained highway funds (think MN bridge collapse). The last thing we need to do is cut tax revenues and increase the strain on our infrastructure (recently Tom Friedman has been ranting about our crumbling infrastructure).

Rather, what the U.S. needs is someone who can tell the people that the U.S. cannot continue to write checks its ass can't cash (i.e. NO GAS TAX HOLIDAY). This is particularly relevant to the events of the past week.

Will Obama do this? I don't know, but I do know that he is the only person with the rhetorical ability to actually do so. Hillary does not have this ability.

Also, Obama is not a flaming liberal. That liberal rating in the Senate means nothing, just like McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time means nothing (he's been in the Senate for less than 4 years for god's sake). For example, Obama supports performance pay for teachers and charter schools, something I've never heard from Hillary.

Lastly, Obama is a pragmatist, and he is smart enough to know that the U.S. cannot continue on the same path its been on for some time now. He knows that this country cannot afford some of his policy proposals until he first restores sound governance to the white house.

Dan

Very interesting discussion. Although I'm sure Obama has no pride deficit, I really don't think that pride alone motivated him not to pick Hillary. I described the reasons I think she would have been a bad choice. My biggest fear -- back when I assumed she'd be the Democratic nominee -- was that I worried she'd feel a need to show her "strength" in ways that would get us involved in another war. It's a moot point.

But let me make two others:

1. You're buying into the argument that Obama hasn't accomplished anything. That's not true, and both at the state and Federal level he's been rather effective. This post provides a very good summary, I think -- http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

I lived in Illinois when he got the State Police to agree to videotape all interrogations. Law enforcement was as politicized there as anywhere else, but it was a change that worked out extremely well (particularly for the police).

2. I assume you're currently based in China. I've been there during elections (both in 1992 and 2000) and during other momentous US events (like the start of the current war in Iraq). I really think that it looks different from there in important ways. In particular, Obama's success in getting younger people to actually vote and getting an unprecedented number of people to donate money matter, because the number of people who feel that they are stakeholders in his effort are an important resource for improving the political culture of this country.

What damage do you fear either of them is going to personally be responsible for doing? And how can anyone know if bad events were their fault, or the inevitable consequence of larger forces in the situation in the world until about 100 years from now when there's a bit more perspective?

Hillary does have a lot of value as a leader and a politician. That being said, she had no control over her campaign. Why does the "I told you so" crowd suddenly think she would be able to control the markets and White House better than she controlled Mark Penn and the Anti-Penn factions?

Out of curiosity, for whom did you vote in the 92 primary? Tsongas, Clinton or Brown?

Dan,

My comments were aimed at the tenor of the conversation which seemed too much along the lines of a call and response for political dissatisfaction.

Political discussion is the life blood of democracy I wish there was more of it and I applaud you for discussing them but your comments struck me as a call for apathy.

When faced with a choice let us make the best one possible. If it is to write in Hillary or Ron Paul so be it, but to do so as a vote against the system, as an act of protest or so you can say "I told you so", while everyone’s right, is at best a Pyrrhic victory.

How far we have come from the America of Ben Franklin and the founding fathers who were able to fashion a rag tag bunch of religious zealots, criminals, political undesirables, adventurers and pioneers into a nation; a nation of people who fought and paid in blood, for their right and the rights of their descendants to vote. Don’t we owe those who have come before us and those who will follow us the responsibility to make the best choice possible?

As attorney's we spend our days advising clients about the choices in front of them. Based on what I have seen of your writings I imagine you do an excellent job. I was disappointed that you did not apply those same talents to the political choices we face.

Hilliary is a bold faced liar, who broke down on national television because she was loosing to a Black Man. Not to mention, she praised Charlie Rangel for not "jumping the line" during a speech at a church in South Carolina and felt that Barak should quell is ambition.

This election is a no brainer. I am voting for the smartest man on the ballot, Barak Obama.

How would a vote for Hillary entitle you to say 'I told you so'? In what way is she manifestly more qualified for the position than Obama and McCain? Look at the way that she managed her campaign - banking on winning really quickly and not preparing a strategy for a drawn out fight. Remind you of a major foreign policy disaster that she backed?

Personally, I don't expect to ever be presented with a candidate for major office that sees ideal to me. I'll go with the best of what's available.

With McCain we have someone who wants to privatize social security, do nothing on health care, and has an incredibly bellicose sensibility about foreign policy. Obama wants to preserve social security, move towards universal health care (his plan is not ideal, but is a start in the right direction) and is not a war monger. Thats a no brainer to me.

Is the system broken? Sure. For one the media is not capable of talking about anything but the most superficial aspects of the race. I'd be interested in hearing a lot more about substantive policy proposals than offhand comments a la lipstick on a pig, or bitter.

Matt,

I hope you are right, though I have to say I had more faith in Reagan before he was elected than I do in either of these two.

Though it has been the in thing to bash capitalism over the last few weeks, I still think it an incredible stretch to try to put Bill Clinton out of the mainstream and Obama in it. A federal bailout does not equal socialism either.

otherlisa,

I am surprised people are even trying to challenge Hillary's qualifications and as a lifelong Democrat (I was, I THINK, at one time the youngest delegate to a state convention, at least that's what my mother told me at the time and moms are always right) I do feel a duty to let the party know how unhappy I am with the way Hillary was shunted aside.

You are in California and you absolutely know Obama is going to win there so maybe you should ask yourself which will make more of a statement, voting for Obama or for Hillary. I think that's what I am going to do here in WA, which is also pretty much an Obama lock.

david,
David,

I did not think the gas tax holiday was a good idea, but it does show Hillary's understanding of what people want.

What you are asking for is the truth from those running for office and I certainly cannot disagree with that.

I agree with you on Obama not really being a liberal because some of his views (at least those things he worked for before running for office)are far to the left of liberal. Show me where he supports charter schools as I find that very interesting.

I love how you can state that "Obama is a pragmatist, and he is smart enough to know that the U.S. cannot continue on the same path its been on for some time now. He knows that this country cannot afford some of his policy proposals until he first restores sound governance to the white house." How do you know that when the guy has no history whatsoever. This is you tacking your hopes onto him. I do hope you are right, but as a lawyer, I am more used to making decisions like this on the basis of evidence, not blind hope.

Kevin,

I don't think it fair (is it sexist?) for you to say Hillary would need to show her strength by getting us into a war. All I know is that Hillary has an amazing grasp on foreign policy and I trusted her because of that. People talk about how smart Obama is, but when it comes to foreign policy, that guy is a complete neophyte, let's face it. And it is in foreign policy that I truly fear McCain is indeed Bush II.

I never said Obama has not accomplished anything, nor do I believe that. The fact that the one thing you list his having accomplished is getting the IL state police to agree to tape interrogations is scary as hell. I hate to tell you, but that kind of stuff happens every day in every state and probably none of the people pulling it off are qualified to be our President. Please stop scaring me even more.

I am in Seattle, WA, not China. I don't understand what you are talking about re our youth and this idea of the youth going to the polls in great numbers has been talked about since back when I actually qualified as youth and so far it has never really happened. I think the overwhelming majority of Americans, and I am absolutely including those voting for McCain AND Obama, OF ALL AGES, want nothing more than to see our country thrive.

Wesley,

I was half-kidding about not voting for either just so I can in a few years exculpate myself from any blame. Two things I have learned. One, nobody voted for Bush in either election and everybody in Michigan played touch football with Gerald Ford. It's called Monday morning quarterbacking.

Josh Gartner,

I do not think anyone, including Hillary, "can control the markets" but I also don't think that how one campaigned has all that great a correlation to one's ability to lead as President, and that is the whole point here.

I bought into Bill Clinton from day one as I saw him bringing the democratic party back to the middle AND making it possible for it to actually start winning elections again. I also liked Gore Jr. instantly because I had so much respect for his father's having supported civil rights in the face of a populace that didn't want it.

@Dan - Okay, so no consitutional reform, but I can't help but feel that much of the problem with who the candidates are has to do with the nature of the post that they are standing for. The president is not required to lead by consensus, instead he or she is given great executive powers for which there are few checks and balances, and little in the way of real sanctions for poor performance except the possibility of being removed at the end of his or her first term. Once the first term has been served the only sanctions that are remain are those for specific wrong-doing, rather than simple lack-lustre governance. The president is who he or she is elected to be - a distant figure handing down orders, and to whom there is little recourse or access.

In short, it is the nature of the post which is the problem, not the specific person that occupies it.

The system and its health are certainly worthy of debate. Now, regarding this particular election we have to choose between one of the Keating 5 and a VP choice who believes that dinosaurs and humans coexisted and the former editor of Harvard Law Review (seriously... what's the worst you can say about the man?) and a man with decades of policy experience. That choice is so easy for me that there is debate.

I think president Obama will be better president of America as compare to others.