Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The 2008 Race for President and the Search for Our Better Selves

By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Posted February 5, 2008.


Which presidential candidate can lead us to do more good than we think we're capable of?
Huffington

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Arianna Huffington

Caught Shilling for the Drug War, Pollster Attacks the Messenger
Pollster Mark Mellman was hired by Lockheed Martin to push for funding for drug tracking planes in Colombia and doesn't like being called on it.
Apr 16, 2008

A McCain Moment: Do You Want Four More Years of This?
It's not just George Bush's war that McCain wants to continue; it's George Bush's approach.
Mar 26, 2008

Microtrends vs. Macrotrends: Why Obama Is Winning
Clinton guru Mark Penn tried to slice the electorate into the "small forces behind tomorrow's big changes," while Obama tried to unify us.
Mar 3, 2008

More stories by Arianna Huffington

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Watching yesterday's Obama rally in Los Angeles featuring Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver, and Michelle Obama, I was struck by a point that both Michelle Obama and Maria Shriver made but that is rarely discussed during a presidential campaign: the importance of having someone in the Oval Office who can inspire us to tap into the better angels of our nature -- who can stir people to expect more of themselves than they otherwise would.

"The thing I like the best" about Obama, said Shriver, is that "he's not about himself. He's about us... He's about the power of what we can do if we come together." And she quoted from a Hopi Indian prayer: "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

Michelle Obama made a similar point, adding that this "it's about us" dynamic would require all of us to up our game. "[Barack] is ready," she said. "The question is, what are we ready for?... Barack Obama will require that you work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism; that you put down your division; that you come out of your isolation; that you move out of your comfort zones; that you push yourself to be better; and that you engage."

This call echoed something that historian and presidential biographer David McCullough had once said about JFK. "The great thing about Kennedy," he told me, "is that he didn't say I'm going to make it easier for you. He said it's going to be harder. And he wasn't pandering to the less noble side of human nature. He was calling on us to give our best."

I'd interviewed McCullough back in 1999, along with a variety of other political observers, for a column I was doing on the 2000 race and what Americans were looking for in a president.

The consensus opinion, one that crossed party and ideological lines, was that while specific policy proposals and nuts-and-bolts plans are an important part of what a candidate brings to the table, more than anything, people are looking for a leader who can inspire and mobilize them, who can tap into America's latent reserve of idealism.

"A great president," the late Paul Wellstone told me, "is one who successfully calls on all Americans to be their own best selves."

"Every presidential election is a renewal," said McCullough. "Like spring, it brings up all the juices. The people are so tired of contrivance and fabrication and hokum. They really want to be stirred in their spirit. That's when we are at our best. The great presidents are people who caused those who follow them to do more than they thought they were capable of."

"The American people," said Cornel West, "want a statesman who will tell the truth about our collective life together, good and bad, up and down, vices and virtues. That is the ultimate act of respect for the American people."

"What a successful president does," William F. Buckley Jr. told me, "is transcend the usual marketplace collisions. FDR accomplished that, and so did Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. A successful president isn't necessarily one who takes us in a direction I applaud. But he is somebody who does get the country excited about a political purpose."

Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin agreed: "We need to get away from a political system that is so filled with minute public opinion polls and focus groups and the ability to know what the electorate is thinking at every moment that the leader loses his instincts for boldness. The job is not simply to reflect current opinion but to challenge it, move it forward and shape it. The ability to just take a stand and know that you can move the country to that stand is a lost art we need to recapture."

Back in '99, I also spoke to Sen. John McCain, who hadn't yet begun his 2000 bid for president. He too focused on "the ability to inspire Americans," and reached back to a defining moment in our history -- JFK's speech proposing the Peace Corps: "Young people were willing to live in a village hut in Africa for years and dig irrigation ditches," said McCain. "Why were they willing to do that? Why were they in fact eager to do that? It's because he inspired them to do it." Almost a decade later, McCain is still talking about sacrifice -- but these days he's thinking less of time spent digging ditches in Africa, and more of blood spilled on the streets of Iraq. Alas.

After the dark, uninspiring -- indeed deeply alienating -- years of the Bush presidency, the feeling that I took away from these conversations resonates even more profoundly today: that it is time we recognize that our search for a great president is also a search for our better selves. Finally, a political litmus test that matters: Which presidential candidate can lead us to do more good than we think we're capable of?

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Just a Wee Bit Disingenuous, No?
Posted by: armorypk on Feb 5, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, Arianna, if you were really sincere in your desire to find "Which presidential candidate can lead us to do more good than we think we're capable of?", then you would have endorsed and supported Dennis Kucinich for President. Instead, your blog (on the rare occasions his name was even mentioned) marginalized and belittled his campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» GREAT BIG GIANT YAAAAWWWNNNN Posted by: foreverhope
More Obama Mania...blah inspiration blah blah
Posted by: arieden on Feb 5, 2008 2:04 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone keeps invoking JFK. From what I've studied, JFK was not aggressive on Civil Rights and had he lived, I believe it may have stalled the momentum of the movement. LBJ pushed through the legislation - something that JFK probably wouldn't or couldn't do.
I'm not looking for inspirational talk - I'm looking for someone who will actually deliver: Hillary Clinton. She and Obama are very close on policy, but I know she is a doer. I'm afraid that Obama may be another alpha male that talks a good talk and then...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You want a revolution do you? Posted by: foreverhope
Time for a change
Posted by: andreline on Feb 5, 2008 4:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are ready to make a change...
http://www.dipdive.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary & Obama – Corporate Monopoly Carny Barkers
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Feb 5, 2008 4:57 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arianna was not to be taken seriously before her Huffington Post days and clearly not after. Her web effort is certainly no more trustworthy than MSM “news” for a treacherous joke at best. (even Huffington Post commentors are so severely censored on banned, no rebutting of the status quo nonsense is allowed)

There are so many well-intentioned and utterly confused voters [some on this thread] saying things like Hillary or Obama will “deliver” or give “new hope” to America I had to introduce a bit of obvious reality to the mix.

Such talk is empty pap.

This is amply demonstrated by an appalling Hillary voting record and cartel Wall Street / Big Oil / Military Industrial cash support. Ditto for Obama who is no better.

What Hillary or Obama will "deliver" is the country sold down the river for endless phony "war on terror" genocide on the public dime at a million plus murders (so far) with more economic NAFTA globalization at home, more AIPAC unqualified support for Israel, no real healthcare, etc, etc.

Of course, the repthugs (minus nonconformist Ron Paul) have their war and Big Brother skeletons all out of the closet for a platform just as dangerous – only openly so.

Sorry, but the rest is barnyard conversation for what might as well be sleep-drunk rubes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» who are giving your to vote to? Posted by: foreverhope
hheisey
Posted by: hheisey on Feb 6, 2008 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given the deep division that has been created in the country by the radical right, it is going to take more than idealism and a call for the American people to roll up their sleeves and get to work on "unity."
The Republican Party is a divisive party with an agenda to destroy our Constitutional rights and turn this country into a plutocracy/theocracy. Until this is recognized and rejected, even an anointed saint will not be able to accomplish anything for the common good.
What makes anyone think the Republican Party is going to relinquish their scheming success for control via an honest election? Get real, folks, this one will be stolen also and we'll continue down the road to democracy's landfill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JFK The Myth
Posted by: gabbyone on Feb 6, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JFK had a wonderful ability to draw you in with his speech and his humor. He had great
intellectual depth, a wonderful war resume,
foreign exposure, and 13 years in Congress and a tragic death that made him larger than life.
Despite all of his great abilities, he got us into the Bay of Pigs, 5 weeks into his Administration, took us into Vietnam and stuggled with Civil Rights legislation. He was inspiring and much more experienced than Obama and still had problems. His brother RFK who was tough and a real worker, saved his
butt many a time. I think Obama has the message of JFK but not much else, but Hillary has the work ethic of RFK and the legislative knowledge of LBJ which will get the job done.
Inspiration is a wonderful thing, but when
the job doesn't get done, the people can turn
on that person very fast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, and as for Hillary. Posted by: PJAW
Obama a CFR member
Posted by: ronheri on Feb 6, 2008 1:18 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama and his wife are both members of the Council on Foreign Relations; as are most of the candidates that were and still are in the race. This evil Rockafeller think tank looks to establish a One World Order. Ron Paul was and is the best hope for America. No matter who wins in November, the Ron Paul movement will continue to grow. Freedom will not be denied.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's speechwriter- whose inspriration?
Posted by: sageworks on Feb 6, 2008 1:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Obama's speeches are inspirational. Inspire - as in "air". I'd be more impressed if his speechwriter wasn't studying MLK, RFK and JFK as reported in the NY Times. They also said when he isn't reading from a teleprompter, his speeches are less "electrifying." And why do we need someone to pull the nation together? Because the republicans pulled it apart - not the democrats. So why do we need a democrat to be conciliatory - especially to the non-concilliatory republicans. This already brought us NAFTA, WTO (loss of sovereignty) Banking Deregulation and Welfare Deform under Bill Clinton. Centrist policies in this day and age are far to the right of the republicans at the time of Eisenhower and the Rockefellers. Obama? Thanks but no thanks. Change change change. An empty mantra.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Obama's inspriration Posted by: foreverhope
War the Real difference==write today letters to Ed.
Posted by: herbal on Feb 6, 2008 2:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul Krugman and most of the mainline press & media are trying to portray health insurance as the only difference between the corporatist Hillary and over conciliatory Obma. Obama accepted the ´pece branch´from Hillary fter the failue of Bill in his negative confrontations. Obama despertely needs to get agressive about his differences in war voting and distinguish himself from warmonger Hillary and her voting record. How dare her attack Obama´s anti war intent!

We internet hacks are only preaching to the choir at this point.

We need to mount a general strike at Hillary by writing to the editors of small and large newspapers in the states with upcoming primaries.

Write today, esp. with those who are in those states. Get them out today to avert a disaster of the Clinton alliance with Geo Bush Sr, Rupert Murdoch, CITI Bank, etc. etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That was John Edwards Arianna..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Feb 6, 2008 8:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But we blew it..

Simple as that..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Which candidate could help make us better people? LOL!!
Posted by: MobileSucks on Feb 10, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is Dennis Kucinich Being McKinney'd?
Get Kucinich
By KEVIN ZEESE

On the Hill some call it being McKinney'd--the treatment Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney received when she was in Congress. Twice, rather than protecting the incumbent, the Democrats put up well funded challengers against her. Now, it looks like Dennis Kucinich may be facing the same treatment in Cleveland.

There is a report circulating the web that before the Nevada primary Kucinich was visited by representatives of Nancy Pelosi and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the right wing Israeli lobby. They told him that if he would drop his campaigns to impeach Cheney and Bush, they would guarantee his re-election to the House of Representatives. Kucinich threw them out of his office.

Kucinich has aggressively challenged the Democratic Party leadership in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail on the issues of war, civil liberties, impeachment and big business control of government. He's even refused to pledge to endorse the party's presidential nominee.
--rest at counterpunch.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RFK and H. Clinton
Posted by: Dianka on Feb 16, 2008 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RFK and H. Clinton both focused on economic issues, and both had an agenda for the poor. That is where the similarities end. RFK took a practical approach to poverty. He understood that the very poor needed to obtain a measure of economic stability, via welfare aid, before they could pursue education and/or employment. Indeed, over 80% of welfare recipients utilized such things as job training programs, and were able to VOLUNTARILY quit welfare in under 5 years. From Rooselvelt's New Deal up until welfare "reform", millions of Americans
were able to keep their families together while working their way out of poverty, and they created the huge middle-class that we once had.

Even before getting to the White House, Hillary Clinton began taking a lead in welfare
"reform". The primary achievement of this "reform" has been the creation of a massive involuntarily workforce of part time, bottom wage labor. If you recall, corporations howled about the lack of people applying for these bottom wage, dead-end jobs; Clinton resolved that problem by creating, essentially, a Third World workforce out of our poor.

RFK's plan was to use corporations for the benefit of the poor, and H. Clinton's plan is to (continue to) use the poor for the benefit of corporations. RFK's agenda moderated corporate profits while benefiting the whole of the nation. Clinton's agenda increases corporate profits to the detriment of the nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]