Choosing a President (2)

I have said that maturity of character is the most important qualification to be President. So in the current field passes this test?

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton appears to have the best character to be President. She's never actually been President, but she used to live with someone who was. She knows a lot of what is involved in fulfilling the office.

Barack Obama is young, charismatic and gives the impression he knows what he's doing. But he is 45 now, and on inauguration day he will be 47. He is only in the third year of his first term as Senator. Hillary turns 60 later this year. The American electorate, after choosing two successive Presidents (Clinton and Bush) who turned out not to have the maturity of character required for the office, needs to be very careful this time around to choose someone whose has the character needed for the office.

Of course, someone might argue that a Black person in America, because of all the extra obstacles he or she needs to overcome, develops at least as much character in 45 years as a White person does in 60. Good point. Hillary, though, can trump this argument by saying, "Yeah, but look who I've been married to and all that I've had to put up with him." I think she comes out the winner in this contest. I think Obama will make a great President, but not this time.

(Continued . . .)

How to choose a President (1)

We have so many presidential candidates this year, maybe we should let the American Idol judges have a go at them before the rest of America has to start voting.

Absent that option, I am going to propose some criteria to winnow the field a bit.

First, the most important qualification to be President of the United States is to possess the maturity of character that is appropriate to the office. Both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush fell short on this point.

When Mr. Clinton demonstrated immaturity of character to a White House intern, his allies tried to argue that character was not important. In fact, it is the most important of all. The President is not just a policy maker. He represents the country, and it's important that we be represented by a man or woman of good character. It's important for our own self-image as a nation and for our standing in the world.

I once heard a person argue that Mr. Clinton would have made a great president, if he had taken office at least a decade later than he did. That sounds right to me. About ten more years of maturity would have served him well.

George W. Bush's immaturity of character was illustrated when he took the country to war when there were still other options available to him. Perhaps he let Dick Cheney pressure him into a decision that went against his better judgment. Perhaps his public judgment was clouded by his personal animosity toward Saddam Hussein stemming from a 1993 assassination attempt against his father and his wife. The fact is that he didn't pressure the CIA for better and more accurate intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't look like he asked the question, "Why do we need to go war now, as opposed to a year from now."

(Continued . . . )

The saga continues on Iraq war funding bill

Congressional leaders have been invited to a meeting with President Bush today to discuss the impasse over the war funding bill. It appears unlikely the meeting will serve to narrow the divide between the two sides.

(Sure enough! Here's the report.)

At this point, it is important for President Bush to realize that there are certain definite limitations when a free and democratic society such as the United States chooses to prosecute a war. The government cannot keep the country in a war for an extended period without firm public support.

Today, that support does not exist. It is time for the President to consider how to accomplish the objectives of the war through other means. Many of the assumptions behind the decision to go to war have been demonstrated to have been wrong. In such a situation, it is only natural that the country would want to pull the troops out and rethink our strategy for the region.

True, there are times when a leader must take an unpopular course of action. But President Bush should not cast himself in such a heroic role, because that principle does not apply here. It would be one thing if the public were saying, "We think you're wrong, but because we believe in you and you have a track record of good leadership we are going to give you the benefit of the doubt." That is not what the public is saying today.

There were periods in his administration when he had command of such respect. After the 2004 election, he claimed he had "earned political capital" and told us he intended to spend it. In 2006, the electorate transferred ownership of that capital to the Democrats and President Bush needs to acknowledge this fact.

The leader of a democratic society can go against the tide of public support only for so long before his righteous conviction to principle becomes obstinate refusal to consider other options. Presidents are elected to four-year terms, but that does not mean a President can ignore changes in public opinion after he is elected.

President Clinton was often criticized for governing by opinion poll. President Bush appears to have taken the matter to the other extreme, and it is even more problematic for the country.