2008 will be regarded as an historic turning point election in the United States. Someone always says that about every election, but this year we have some evidence. No modern U.S. election has ever featured such wide-open primaries in both parties. No modern presidency has ever left such deep ideological divides in this county as George W. Bush’s has. So we know an important stage in our history is coming next; we just don’t know what will happen or who will lead us through it.
Looking back at presidential history, it can be argued that America always picks a president that fits the times. Conservative or liberal, crooked or honest, our president reflects something important about our society. FDR represented America’s hope amid the Depression and World War II. Truman’s defiant victory in 1948 said something about America in the post-war period. Eisenhower embodied the 1950s. Kennedy represented the changes of the coming 1960s. Johnson will be forever linked to the tumult of the Vietnam escalation and civil rights debate. Nixon — for all his controversy — represented the conservatism of his time. Ford and Carter showed the two sides of the post-Watergate era. Reagan’s shiny optimism and supply-side economic policies showed our people’s best and worst qualities in the 1980s. Bush the First was Reagan’s echo as our country began to look around and wonder. Clinton was the pragmatic centrist with a heart and many weaknesses, the personification of the 1990s. George W. Bush’s presidency cannot fully be judged yet, but I’d argue that his narrow, controversial election in 2000 was a statement about our country’s political power structure and our collective apathy. His re-election in 2004 was about post-9/11 fear. From 1932 to 1952, a liberal mood permeated the nation. Since then, with few exceptions, we have lived in a conservative trend. We don’t pick our presidents the way we pick senators, county commissioners or city clerks. Somehow, voting for a president is more personal than even the most local of local races.
So here we are in 2008. For me — both a political observer and participant — the most important thing is that American get a good choice between conflicting viewpoints that will lead to a transcendental presidency that says our times are better than those that came before. With this very lofty goal in mind, this blog is endorsing Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in the Republican primaries.
BARACK OBAMA 
Sen. Barack Obama was not my first choice when this process began. Like many, I was impressed with his 2004 Democratic Convention speech. I was also impressed with his announcement speech last year. But I didn’t believe he’d have the ability to translate great speeches into an effective candidacy, an opinion bolstered by early mediocre debate performances. Obama has since grown as a candidate and I now believe he offers the right mix of idealism, practicality and bipartisan appeal to change the dynamic in America and around the world.
If resumes were all that mattered, we’d be talking about Bill Richardson and Joe Biden right now. For right or wrong, we aren’t. The great presidents were able to grow with the office; their potential mattered more than their past. No candidate in the field offers the potential of Barack Obama. He has the ability to reach across the aisle to solve longstanding domestic issues, improve our standing overseas and break the negative cycle of partisan bickering that dominates our media.
Why not the others?
John Edwards was my favorite when this whole process started last year and I still like him. He’s a strong second choice. But Edwards’ rhetoric — though encouraging for liberal populists — does not create the necessary mood of national healing that we need. I don’t doubt he would fight hard as president for people who need help. But the hard talk will embolden opponents who might otherwise be won over on issues like universal health with a more logical, collaborative approach.
There remains a strong chance that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. I respect her and would consider voting for her, but I fail to see how she reflects the greatness we’d all like our times to one day be remembered for. She’s a skilled political mind, competent and ready. But she is the Republican Party’s best hope for victory on account of her (probably unfair) divisive reputation.
Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are also skilled politicians and diplomats. In the old days, they might have gotten a shot through a brokered convention. Times have changed.
JOHN MCCAIN
Keep in mind, that there was a moment — ever so brief — back in 2000 when I believed that I would vote for John McCain over Al Gore if he beat George W. Bush. I am willing to vote for candidates I disagree with on some issues if I trust their judgement and motives. I am encouraged by the possibility of McCain vs. Obama presidential race. Such a race offers voters a clear choice between ideals involving candidates who deserve respect.
John McCain has been running an “establishment” campaign this year, but he really had no choice. What he’ll stress if he’s the Republican nominee is his long history of being a political maverick. We have every reason to believe that McCain will spend every minute of a presidency doing exactly what he thinks is right. A conservative, McCain has shown great balance in his approach to issues like taxes and foreign policy. He will not govern to appease some think tank out there. He’s an honest alternative for moderate Democrats unimpressed with their nominee.
Why not the others?
I normally wouldn’t say a peep about the Republican primary on account of my own party
affiliation and ideology, but I’ve liked McCain since 2000. That said, Mike Huckabee would be an interesting choice that might put a likable face on the conservative Christian movement. I worry very much about how his presidency might shift America toward a theocracy. Rudy Giuliani is the face of America’s response to 9/11 and his nomination would allow an important discussion about that topic. He also tests the Republican electorate as a social moderate/liberal hasn’t had the GOP nomination in 40 years. However, I fear a continued reduction of personal freedoms and a dangerous neo-conservative foreign policy under a Guiliani presidency. Mitt Romney would be to the Republicans what John Kerry was to the Democrats. Fred Thompson lacks the inertia to elevate his poll numbers or the nation.
These endorsements merely reflect my thoughts on the day before the 2008 Iowa caucuses. If anyone has read this far, I thank you and congratulate you on your endurance. Please consider the candidate you think best represents the kind of America you want to see.
I agree with you 100%. I may have put Huckabee before McCain but it really is up a toss up.
Interesting!…
US-ELECTION-NOTES