In that Chronicle piece, Barack needs a bit more fine tuning on his understanding of environmental issues and carbon dioxide emissions. However, he was right on the mark about the effectiveness and efficiency of those catalytic converters which transformed the quality of the air we breathe in CA today. One can learn more by going here.

http://www.coalitionforcleanair.org/

California is leading the way.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH8DR.DTL&o=0

As for Clinton v. Obama, I have looked at Hillary Clinton’s “resume” and Obama’s “resume” and the latter shows a consistency that is much more comforting, hardly “slim” for his years. It is public record that Clinton has taken millions in lobbyist money directly and through “bundled” techniques–in that sense she truly is “transactional”. She was the president of the Young Republican in college, was an average student, failed her first bar exam, then went on to be a corporate lawyer in Arkansas, and sat on the board of Wal Mart. Her years as first lady were largely uneventful save for her failed health care initiative. Her senatorial record is also unimpressive.

Barack Obama on the other hand graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, then went on to direct Illinois Project VOTE! and worked on community development projects. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 9 years, and also served as a state senator. The only boards he sat on were civic or philanthropic. In contrast to the silver-spooned Clinton, Obama just paid off his student loans 3 years ago from his book sales. He is taking no lobbyist money for his presidential race, which has raised most of its millions from under $100 contributions. John Kerry (one of many high profile endorsers) said this about Obama’s record http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjh2PmZf3Ss .

Before Susan Eisenhower, Carolina Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy, Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, Garrison Keeler, Ken Burns and others who had *nothing to gain* by acting to endorse Obama, I read his work, looked as his career, heard him speak, and I am most impressed.

With respect to past Presidents, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was both a great and effective transformational and transactional President. Tough. (with and against foes both domestic and international). Compassionate and Flexible. (with and against foes both domestic and international). He allowed Krushchev to save face in the Cuban Missile Crisis (“Bay of Pigs”), remember? The Free World won that one. The whole World received a very important education. Click on the link below to get more info on JFK.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jk35.html

In the final analysis, problems must be solved. The People and the Governments that are supposed to serve them must be mobilized to ensure national security, to cure the ills of society, to foster and promote business and economies, and to maximize and preserve the resources in which they are powerfully and dutifully keepers of. And if those objectives can be achieved with a bit of compassion it would be an added blessing.

ALL of the best presidents were transactional. ALL OF THEM — good presidents must be.

If Clinton is more transactional and Obama more transformational … that tells you something right there.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country’s history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.

After the failure in his second year of a huge program of health care reform, Clinton shifted emphasis, declaring “the era of big government is over.” He sought legislation to upgrade education, to protect jobs of parents who must care for sick children, to restrict handgun sales, and to strengthen environmental rules.

Peace.

Great column. I couldn’t agree with you more. But there’s one more thing to consider: With the exception of Theodore Roosevelt, presidents in their 40s aren’t all that successful. Our most successful presidents have been in their 50s and 60s.

Of course, you can also make the opposite comment, too, that presidents in their 50s and 60s stand a very good chance of failing, too.