|
if you use "soporific" in a piece, they have to give you a Pulitzer. It's in the rules.
I thought the op ed was ok...had some salient points, but others were off the mark. The reality is the Clinton didn't drive the country into the ground. You don't need a "crisis" to rise to the occasion. The job is tough enough as it is. If anything, a crisis makes things *easier* for a leader, because you can get public opinion behind you and get things done that otherwise would take herculean effort. In that regard I think the Bush will be viewed historically as a rather significant failure. In the days after 9/11 he could have done nearly *anything* and the country would have supported him. He had carte blanche as long as he said a few good quotes and did the obligatory live appearances (which all candidates know how to do these days). But his leadership put us into a quagmire war and arguably teetering economy.
Time is cruel and history is constantly revisionist. And stuff happens. Timing is everything. Clinton's claim to fame was the ability to compromise and get people talking. That is no mean feat in this country. Bush otoh has become a great polarizer. You can blame the media all you want...but both sides have to deal with it. Kinda like our softball game the other night. One of our guys complained that we couldn't hit because of the wind. My response was that both sides had the same wind when they had a bat in their hand...
|