I don't see the point in bringing Bill Clinton, Grover Cleveland, or any other former President into a discussion of the qualifications of the current President.
Maybe Clinton was sufficiently qualified to lead in the '90s. An upswing economy was being driven by the emergence of the baby boom generation, only appropriate that we should have someone with some youth, energy, and enthusiasm after all those years of boring old men. The economy was strong, there were no more major threats, it was not a bad time for some liberalism. Of course he turned out to be a prick, but don't they all?
And of course they overdid it - not just Clinton, the whole overspending, credit-dependent generation, consuming like mad people, saving nothing, driving markets to unsustainable highs, etc. Nothing new.
So now we have a much more complex, demanding situation, presenting a whole new set of risks and rewards. I'm not basically averse to seeing a more conservative administration, but I just can't believe this crowd is the best we could do.
I also don't believe that they are going to do much of a job. I hope I'm wrong.
I don't think Al Gore would have been up to it either. The electoral process failed us badly in more ways than one last time around, something I think can be reasonably attributed to complacency. We may all regret it soon enough. |
