America's Face

Reza Aslan in washingtonpost.com:

As someone who once was that young Muslim boy everyone seems to be imagining (albeit in Iran rather than Egypt), I'll let you in on a secret: He could not care less who the president of the United States is. He is totally unconcerned with whatever barriers a black (or female, for that matter) president would be breaking. He couldn't name three U.S. presidents if he tried. He cares only about one thing: what the United States will do.

That boy is angry at the United States not because its presidents have all been white. He is angry because of Washington's unconditional support for Israel; because the United States has more than 150,000 troops in Iraq; because the United States gives the dictator of his country some $2 billion a year in aid, the vast majority of which goes toward supporting a police state. He is angry at the United States because he thinks it has hegemony over almost every aspect of his world.

Now, more than one commentator has noted that on all of these issues, the next president will have very little room to maneuver. But that is exactly the point.

He then lists the work ahead, on Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Syria and Iran, Syria and Lebanon, Saudi Arabia's leadership succession, Afghanistan and the Taliban, Pakistan, and Chinese involvement in the Middle East region.

That is how the post-Bush "war on terror" must be handled. Not by "re-branding" the mess George W. Bush has made, but by actually fixing it.

The point being, when picking a president, pick competence, not a symbol.

Comments

[Alan Grieve]

The 'face' argument essentially repeats the Bush campaign theme in 2000. They had no chance of sustaining an argument that Bush would make a better president so they ran with this idea would make a nicer president. It had worked for Reagan so they thought it might work for Bush.

It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

I doubt Bush hit the White House with detailed plans to build an empire of torture and lies. He hit the White House with a total inability to understand the issues or procedures and made himself an immoral puppet to every wingnut with access.

The record for electing nice presidents is unhappy.

[Mithras]

Yeah, his 3 years in the Senate has prepared him about as well as Bush's 6 years as governor.

[Alan Grieve]

3 years in the Senate might count for a lot if he'd done something with it. FDR had not actually spent a long time in office before he won the presidency, but his record as governor of New York was stellar. Ditto Lincoln in his single term in the House.

[upyernoz]

actually, obama's record in illinois is pretty stellar. at least it is in my humble opinion. he was a state rep back when i lived in chicago and always ended up being on the most progressive side of everything. i think he's spent most of his three years in the senate preparing for his presidential run, and he clearly has handlers who are telling him to run to the center rather than emphasizing his record in illinois. i'm just hope that if he makes it to the white house, he doesn't get changed too much in the process of getting there.

[zenpundit]

I will also say a kind word or two for my junior Senator.

First, while Mr. Obama sort of adheres to a great deal of what I would consider to be Leftist nonsense, he is both intelligent and relatively open-minded making decisions based on facts as much as the current party line. That puts him head and shoulders above his senior colleague from Illinois who is about as bright as a ten watt bulb.

Secondly, a good friend of mine who has serious street cred with me knows the Obamas socially and vouches for their character.

Thirdly, in my one interaction with Obama's senatorial staff, they were clearly on the ball when dealing with me as a constituent. Unlike the staff of my Congressman ( Hastert) who were horribly inept.

Fourth, by Illinois standards, Obama has clean hands. Not easy to do here.