THE PLANK APRIL 28, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In Sunday's Washington Post, Joel Achenbach took a great look at the banalities of the American presidency. We're holding the longest job interview in the history of the office--and we've now heard more than a dozen candidates explicate their best ideas for America in 2009. There's been plenty of chatter about mandates and tax caps and nukes. Even more chatter about infighting and money and getting out the vote. Still, no one, pundit or otherwise, can predict the daily, running-the-free-world routine we're expecting our remaining candidates to perform. As Achenbach notes, and as history instructs, it's because there's no telling how our leaders will decide to do the deed.
In strange echoes of Mark Halperin's scales-from-the-eyes op-ed last fall, on how "What it Takes" isn't, he writes:
What we don't tend to do, despite obsessive attention to this contest,
is talk much about what the job entails. We talk instead about
hot-button issues, the latest gaffe, the new sound bite, the polls, the
electoral map. Presidential campaigns glancingly deal with the
institution of the presidency while focusing on the more urgent issue
of winning.The closest thing we've seen to a job description on the campaign trail
has been the 3 a.m. phone call ad, a caricature of the president as the
national guardian, and one that still doesn't quite tell you what a
president does during working hours.
Yet walking through both Roosevelt White Houses, the nine-to-five
Reagan administration, Bush-era ascetism and the agonizing bull sessions of Bill
Clinton's presidency, the only common thread may be the rapid aging that comes along with the Wilson china. And, campaign foreplay aside,
The last century is littered with failed or mediocre presidencies. The
job nearly crushed men who once strode the landscape like titans. They
self-destructed in some cases, or had no business being in the job in
the first place.
So not only may "what it takes" change in a split second (cf. 9.11.01) -- such mystical powers might not come in handy until day, oh, 1000. Which is why, during Chris Wallace's ballyhooed Fox News Sunday interview with Barack Obama, one moment in particular jumps out:
WALLACE: Finally, and we have about a minute left, what have you learned in
this campaign? And I don’t mean, gee, what a great country this is
answer. What mistakes have you made? What have you learned about running for president? What have you learned about yourself?OBAMA: I’ve learned that I have what I believe is the right
temperament for the presidency. Which is, I don’t get too high when I’m
high and I don’t get too low when I’m low. And we’ve gone through all
kinds of ups and downs.
Is that all it takes?
--Dayo Olopade
9 comments
"The job nearly crushed men who once strode the landscape like titans."
Not so much the job as you arrogant, vindictive, narcissistic bastards of the media, for whom personal destruction is sport or, at best, "just doing my job".
- jm_rice
April 28, 2008 at 2:36am
I'll take Obama's even temperament over the overemotional Green Lantern Theory of governing that the conservatives have on offer.
- chrismealy
April 28, 2008 at 2:49am
Get it off your chest, jm_rice.
Seriously, I almost wonder whether your handle has been hijacked since the web relaunch that enables anyone to post as anyone else. You used to be one of the saner regular posters around these parts, but lately it seems that on the rare occasions when you turn up at all, it's only to call people names.
- aeromonas
April 28, 2008 at 7:14am
No, it obviously isn't ALL it takes, but it is a terrific asset. Otherwise, the emotional toll would be more than anyone can bear. And when the president cannot bear it, it is all to easy simply to hide in the presidential bubble. So, bravo, to Obama for a smart, direct, insightful answer.
Wouldn't it be nice to read a pundit half as smart, direct, and insightful? Meaning pundit other than this one?
As this campaign goes on and these guys, the pundits that is not the candidates, struggle for something to say, they seem to get dumb and dumber. The Democratic candidates, both of them, seem to get better. Maybe that's the difference between a pundit and a successful presidential candidate. The candidate gets stronger under pressure, the pundit simply dissolves.
- roidubouloi
April 28, 2008 at 8:11am
roid, I thought he was great with Chris Wallace, but from Fox this weekend, I would think it was Wright that was running for President, they covered his NAACP speech and his presser in full. This for a basically obscure minister from the South side of Chicago, all in hope that Wright would bring down Obama. War in Iraq? Nah, too boring, near assassination of the Government of Afghanistan? Afwhatistan? Oh yeah, but lets cover Wright.
I left America slightly before the Lewinsky scandal broke out and have lived abroad since. I left a country that seemed fairly sane and prosperous. I am so happy I got out when I did.
- blackton
April 28, 2008 at 10:58am
aeromonas, while you, on the other hand, have not changed at all.
- jm_rice
April 28, 2008 at 11:12am
Well, blackton,
I'm sorry I am not there with you. I left the country in 2004 for a variety of reasons but high on the list was that I couldn't bear any longer watching what Bush was doing to my country from close up. I got into local politics in 2001 to try and do my share. By 2004 we had kicked the local Republicans to hell and back (mini versions of Bush they are) and there was nothing left to do on the local scene. So I moved to Paris. It was a great relief. I was able to read about events here with a sense of detachment that made it far less painful. Now, for family reasons, I find myself back in the States. It is painful all over again. Before Iowa, I was barely paying attention to the presidential campaign. It was too unbearable to contemplate another Republican, be it Hillary Clinton, Goldwater Girl, or one of the card-carrying variety. When I woke up after Iowa and saw the headline, I was hit by this completely unanticipated sense of euphoria that maybe, just maybe, there is a way for this country out of its dead-end. I still think it overwhelmingly likely that Obama will be nominated and highly likely that he will win. However, I am less able to believe that he will be able to do anything significant to change things. The crisis may just not be deep enough for the American people to awaken from their coma. With Ronald Reagan, the country stepped off of the earth into an abyss where fantasy in public affairs is preferred tot reality, and reality will just have to take care of itself. Based on the ability of Hillary and company to utter any bizarre untruth, generally with impunity, and the weird obsessions of the media to which you call our attention,I think we are still stuck there. If anything, I am now even more profoundly depressed by Hillary Clinton, in-house Republican, than I was before Iowa. The barbarians are well inside the gates of the Democratic party.
- roidubouloi
April 28, 2008 at 12:22pm
Did Obama say that's all it takes? Geez, bloggers can be so dense...
- porkido
April 28, 2008 at 1:34pm
what porkido said.
- psantillana
April 29, 2008 at 1:56am