In yesterday’s Powerline, Paul Mirengoff, grateful that he doesn’t have to participate in the selection of the Democratic presidential nominee argues why, he believes, Obama would make a better president than Ms. Hillary:
It’s hard to see Clinton being a good president, at least from my perspective. However, there probably are limits as to how bad she would be. Hillary seems to understand that the world is a dangerous place; that our enemies make it so; and that therefore, at a minimum, we should not be in a rush to accommodate them.
Obama may or may not grasp these basic realities. If he does not, then he will be another Jimmy Carter.
Yet, in contrast to Clinton, one can imagine Obama turning out to be a good president. That’s because there’s some evidence that he’s intellectually open to deviations from orthodox liberalism in ways that Clinton isn’t. In addition, there may be something to his (admittedly self-serving) claim that he’s temperamentally better suited than Clinton to working with his political adversaries. It’s difficult to see how he could be more poorly suited.
Paul’s analysis is remarkably similar to my own. Whereas Hillary dismisses Reagan’s ideas as “bad,” Obama recognizes them as significant even finding, finding merit in such conservative proposals as market approaches to reducing pollution and charter schools to improving education.
Just as smart as (if not smarter than) his brainy Democratic rival, Obama at least shows respect for the intellectual ferment on the right embodied in the Reagan Revolution. This is not to excuse the Illinois Senator for his liberal voting record or for his ever-changing explanations of his relationship to his angry former pastor, but it does show an intellectual curiosity and openness to new ideas that seems wanting in the wonkish Senator from New York.
It just seems that the Democratic frontrunner would sit down with his ideological adversaries for reasons other than political necessity.