Maybe I am being a little ironic. But if people didn’t have it so badly, they would not have considered the best candidate but would have made do with someone not as competent. Yes Mr. Obama is the best candidate between the two. But we know that the best candidate doesn’t always get selected. People usually prefer popularity or charm before capability or competence. How else can we explain George Bush winning the presidency over Al Gore, a man who went on to win the Nobel prize?

Peace

OK, you do have a point that the current conditions make Obama’s speeches really sparkle and inspire much more than he might be able to do in, say a debate in which the competing benefits of particular health care plans might be discussed.

I think Obama is creating and riding a wave of cultural change, and it’s not Bush who created the contrast. Many things feel apart under Bush’s watch, of course, but I never got the sense that he had any real plan at all except to finish his daddy’s war with Iraq, help out those who helped him, and then let the market take care of everything else. Someone had to pick up the pieces, but we chose Obama from among all the candidates in that multi-year campaign because he was the one who seemed to understand how things could be fixed and he was best able to convince people to join him. So, please, don’t give Bush all the credit that Obama deserves. Had Obama not be there, we probably would have elected Hilary over McCain, but it might not have been as satisfying.