Mr. Sullivan’s summing up of the last half century of American politics in “The Atlantic” – that of the interminable and internecine grudge match within the baby boomer generation over Vietnam – is specious at best. A more accurate and compelling reading of the politics of the previous century is offered by New York Times columnist and Princeton professor Paul Krugman in his current book, “The Conscience of A Liberal,” wherein he draws the battle lines quite differently –  New Deal politics and the distribution of wealth.

As for Sullivan’s thesis of there being a sort of convergence of historical forces upon the timeliness of Obama’s candidacy for the presidency: his premises are wrong (for the above reasons) but his conclusion may not be far off. Obama, for quite different reasons, offers a fresh perspective wrapped in a judicious intelligence and all those attractive qualities, that “je ne sais quoi,” one gets from him – his genteel manner and cool, his even-tempered ambition, his intellectual gifts and ease with telling the truth – which adorn and frame his lanky, Lincolnesque figure that has begun to cut its way into more and more hearts eager for civility, sincerity, and an evident virtuousness.

Obama’s not perfect, but he’s perfectly suited to be president. He’s got fight and a hell of a lot more. Again, read Frank Rich’s two previous NY Times OpEds.

The “problems” that we are held responsible for are actually the dreams we permitted ourselves to have in a simpler and more dare I say, “inspiring” time: the possibility of peace in our time, the possibility of ending hunger in our time, the possibility of social equality (race, gender, cultural and religious) in our time. This simpler and more inspirational time was short-lived as were its advocates. Our optimism was met with cynicism, outrage, hatred and eventually, bullets. Vietnam, Kent State, Orangeburg South Carolina. Where have all OUR “inspiring” leaders gone? Cemeteries.

Do we Boomers seek inspiration? You bet. But not for its own sake. Not if we will have to be nostalgic for it in two years in the Christian State of Romney or Huckabee or the Terror State of Giuliani. Inspiration is a pretty weak tea when you live in fear.

All this anti boomer vitriol, put into focus by Obama’s charismatic, but nonetheless patronizing reassurances, seems to suggest we started this “culture” war. Some pretend that the conflict between the powers of repressive authority and the common man was some clownish bitch session that started in a dorm room and leaked out onto the Washington Mall. As you line up for your inspiring “hit” of Obama Kool-Aid behind the likes of David Geffen and Oprah Winfrey, consider the following: The culture war Obama says we can’t get over is the legacy of our fathers, of a post Cold War anti-communism, anti-equality ideology run entirely amok and incorporated into a “free market” agenda that has brought misery and the withdrawal of social services to poor and middle class people from Santiago to New Orleans.

The better the Democrats do in the primaries, the more Huckabee and Romney will lose their charm and will become “wing men” to Rudy G. The religious Right, the Moral Majority, the neo cons one and all, will set aside their differences and get behind a guy they believe can defeat any Democrat. They will trade in inspiration for agitation. It will be a tag-team wrestling match and the battleground will be TV. The majority will decide this election as if it is a sporting event.

This is the most important election in our lifetimes. But somehow only the Republicans seem to be behaving that way. What happens in the next year will affect the lives of our children. It will change or restore America. It will help to keep us in the race for being a great nation and democracy, or allow us to fall into historical irrelevance. That and much more is at stake in the 3 minutes you will spend in a voting booth.

I am clearly going to support the candidate that can beat not only their candidate, but also the egregiously immoral and unethical political machine that elected George Bush – twice. If it proves to be HRC then so be it! But forget Hillary, do you really think that Swift Boating will NOT be brought to bear against Obama? Or Kucinich? Or Edwards? Or Nader? Some of those names you know in your heart would not survive a Rovian onslaught. Though “retired,” he’s just sent the first shot across our bow by endorsing Obama. (Rule #1 Confuse the enemy)

Please consider that the election is not about you being inspired or the values you share with the candidate of your choice. That’s because the election is not about YOU in the first place. It’s about America and the weakest among us. It’s about the Constitution and the protection it provides. It’s about the poor souls dying in Afghanistan and Iraq on either side of those wars. It’s about social justice … for everyone, especially our children and it’s about the America we will bequeath to them.  It is a serious fight. Elect a fighter. They will.

Ms. Goodman proffers a false dilemma – the fallacy of black and white (no pun intended) – in her depleted musings on what an Obama offensive may present to an eventual Republican nominee. Her either/or outlook – Obama, either “a fine philosopher king” or “a strong presidential challenger” – doesn’t consider the possibility and the need for both.

The case for a decisive Obama offensive – once he assumes the position of the Democratic nominee – against any Republican challenger was made by Frank Rich in his NY Times December 2, 2007 OpEd. Rich says, “Were Barack Obama to win the Democratic nomination, he may prove harder for the Republicans to rally against and defeat than the all-powerful Clinton machine.” His arguments to back it up persuade where Goodman’s depress.

Goodman’s either/or perspective continues, bemoaning her “too little ‘audacity of hope.’ Or an excess of experience,” while her prose trips over the lucid wit of Oscar Wilde: “the triumph of hope over experience” – which is precisely the stuff Obama is made of.

Re #118983 by Thomas Billis on 12/08 at 3:38 pm

Of course if Obama is to be a good president he will have to stand up to all sorts of opposition and it will require great political courage. I admit he is untested, and he needs all the help he can get. He has expressed strong support for social security, among other things. He proposes to guarantee its continued fiscal soundness by taxing income in excess of $100,000. Sounds good to me. But plently of people will have a problem with it. It means that the wealthiest 10% of the population will have to pay more taxes, and this will pit the top 10% against the lower 90% in true Rooseveltian fashion.

#118983 by Thomas Billis on 12/08 at 3:38 pm
(13 comments total)

“This is a joke.When in American politics did the lamb lay with lion”
————————————————————————-
Roosevelt was able to build a large enough coalition of lions, lambs, zebras, etc. to accomplish his objectives. When did Roosevelt or anybody else accomplish anything in politics any other way?

This is a joke.When in American politics did the lamb lay with lion.Matter of fact in founding times the rhetoric was twice as ascerbic as it is now.Burr shot Hamilton.You take your positions,you try to convince more people than the other guy that you are right and then you you try to get it done over the opposition of a group who thinks you are leading the country to ruination.That is American politics.If people think there is anyone who is going to get great things done by singing Kombaya and dancing together send me what you are drinking and smoking.The Republicans are still trying to undo what FDR did against fierce opposition.That is a battle they have been waging for 70 years.That is the reason I do not trust Obama he knows better.It is one of the reasons I did not trust George Bush with all that I am a uniter not a divider.They all know how the system has worked for 220 years and when they say it is going to be different I know they are lying.By the way refighting the sixties is not a bad idea if you think the problems of racism and poverty have not been solved.

I think most of the comments on this post just show that Obama is right that progressives with their roots in the late 60’s, the Vietnam War and the fracture of the Democratic Party in 1968 remain alienated. This alienation condemns them to perpetual political frustration. Republicans love alienated progressives. Without them, they could not have spent the last 40 years trashing the country. I should know; I’ve been one of them. Obama is inviting progressives back into the mainstream of American politics. You can either stay out in the cold and keep throwing brickbats or join us in the struggle to take our country back.

Hazmaq-calling me a Republican in a derogatory reference, is name calling not criticism.  This statement seeks to demean the opinion maker.

Hazmaq-I believe that is what I said in a ‘not so eloquent’ way.  I believe that fighting the Repubs shouldn’t resemble Kerry’s (granted his adviser’s) campaign.  Playing nice against the machinations of the Republican (corpatists) party does not work.

I’m all for giving people Hope. Hell, I could use a good dose of that, but, I believe people should understand that words of Hope have to come with good solid honesty and a fight for our nation’s future.

EMH -you must be a Republican
And I define a Republican as one who can’t take constructive criticism.

First, you see ‘name calling’ where none exists.
But now, to clarify my opinion about your opinion, I will say that your arguments against Obama are identical to those of Joe Lieberman’s arguments against the Democratic Party.

Lieberman and the likes of Rahm Emanuel epitomize the definition of pre-polarization.  And what that means in a nutshell is, that they, meaning a small cabal of Democrats, no longer place the core basics of the Democratic Party at as high of a premium as the rest of the party does or as high as the Right holds on to their core principles.
While the Right is reliably Right, the Democrats have become -unstable, and unreliable.

As Markos of Daily Kos put it once, and what Obama refers to (to paraphrase): ” We want Democrats who aren’t afraid of being Democrats.”

I think Obama does recall a short period in the early 60’s, before the Vietnam War started, before the Kennedy assassination, when there was a moment of real unity and progress in America. Everything since then has been reaction. The Clinton administration slowed the decline but did not reverse it. With Bush II we went off the cliff into sheer corporate fascism. I think Obama is our best chance for a progressive president and a strong leader who can take the country forward.

The idea that one can compromise with rich conservative elites is ahistorical.  If something is in their interests, they are for it.  If something is against their interests, they oppose it.  It’s as simple as that.

Hazmaq-there is no need for name calling or vilification just because I opined.

Thanks for the usual and common.

Ellen, you seem to lament the absence of the usual slew of mouthy one liners proffered by ‘professional campaigners’. 
Anyone who saw Blitzer’s blitz on Obama over the issuance of drivers licenses, can’t help but admire Obama for his calm, thoughtful and resolute answer -under such immense pressure from a rude host and on national tv. 
I’d say we could use more politicians who don’t spew out rash decisions, wouldn’t you?

I’m with Andrew ‘s assessment of Obama.  But I double his assessment with this amazing thought relative to the baby boomers-(it hit me after his performance at the recent Iowa Heartland Forum):
Had you blended John F. Kennedy with Martin Luther King -and thrown in a twist of James Brown, you will have just produced, in one package, all the best of what not only the baby boomer’s remember of their glory days, but of what the world still cherishes to this day. Obama has not achieved their greatness but his judgement has been right on so far. I feel there is greatness in him. 

And if you aren’t moved when you listen to the voices of King, Kennedy or Brown….you must be a Republican!

ElkoJohn—It isn’t the government—it is who the government serves. If there wasn’t a need for government, than the founders-framers, often revered by no gubberment types, wouldn’t have instituted one to begin with. The problem is when the checks and balances of government are removed to allow the wholesale looting to occur that already has revealed the libertarian credo as naive because it assumes that without regulation that people will behave and the invisible hand, like some honest patriarchial guidance in the clouds, will make everything right.  What a sham that turned out to be—a convenient scenario to legitimize greed and all other considerations be damned. Do you really think no form of oversight and accountability while everybody free to loot and get over is going to be a paradise or are we regressing back to some form of ruthless winner take all? Sound like progress to you?

yes, Obama, and my guy Kucinich, and all the candidates (except Ron Paul) still believe in our system of gov. which has been taken over & corrupted by the big-money types. There will never be a super-majority of courageous politicians in Congress who will get big-money, their cronies & their propaganda machine out of the business of controlling our gov. So my protest vote goes to Ron Paul, who wants to dismantle the Fed. gov. so big money won’t have an empire to control. As usual, the lesser of the evils.

Frankly, I take issue with Mr. Obama’s assertion that boomers are fighting non existing problems, that we are polarized because of demons of the past. 

First, the problems the boomer generation fought to solve are still with us.

Second, it is well understood (by me) that polarization and disagreement have existed since the formation of the US government.  Hell, what was that little thing called that split the nation with rivers of blood?  Oh yes..THE CIVIL WAR.

Third, opposing points of view are necessary for a democracy, but for this to help the media can’t be controlled by one side of an opposition.

Fourth, polarization is not the demon, well organized, controlled media attacks irrelevant to the issues todays citizens care about are.  The Republicans of the last 25 to 30 years have written the book on dirty, underhanded politics and obfuscation. Because of this we need a warrior type of mentality with a big dose of honesty, empathy and love of our nation of peoples to combat the forces of corporatist.

Mr. Obama appears to being selling ‘LaLa land’ to the people who want to keep the blinders on.  This, to me , is another form of pandering.

Memories are short—Bush billed himself as a “uniter, not a divider”.

  And more of the same coming from Obama is the vacant, feel-good, sound bite shallow platitudes, while he bows out of important votes and dances around issues meekly.
  It is like he is playing the role for TV but unwilling to face the controversial, contentious issues that sometimes require standing alone.  I only wish that Hillary really was fighting the battles of the 60s—which Obama seems to think is such a bad thing. And what is Obama other than divisive since it is he that is drawing yet another dividing line. I don’t care for Hillary—and I wish the Clintons would exit the stage, but Obama isn’t offering anything radically different from Clinton on the issues, just a hollow attempt to use a manner of ageism to galvanize the youth vote. Obama is an empty suit, but hillary is not the strong one her cheerleaders are now spinning her as. She ran with her tail between her legs when the boys lobbed softballs at her—what does she think is coming from the Right—the same red carpet of inevitability rolled out?

  I am not interested in unity with bigots, war mongers, religious fundamentalist gestapo, greedy corporate MSM spouted groupthink and if it means that I am divisive.  So be it.