|
Consider the 2000 election, and I'm talking about the Republicans first. Who's more qualified to be president, Bush or McCain? The answer is obviously McCain, but Bush won the primary. Gore was the obvious choice for the Democrats. Gore won by a moth's breath, but Bush was able to work his network and steal the presidency egregiously ignoring the best interests of our nation. But Gore should have won by a much greater margin making it all but impossible for Dubya to steal the election. However, Gore ran a poor campaign trying too hard to craft his image to please some generic American. It's like a baseball pitcher trying too hard to control the ball instead of trusting his talent and just pitching his pitch.
In 2004 Bush should have been beat, even though incumbents have a distinct advantage. He's a lousy president. The Democrats chose Kerry, an intelligent, capable man, but has a difficult time connecting with the average American. After all, he's a kazillionaire. But in my opinion he blew the one chance he had by not passionately driving a stake through the heart of what appeared to be Bush's strength, national security.
At first Kerry wouldn't even say the invasion was a mistake. He slowly made his way to criticizing Bush on the actual invasion just a couple of months away from the election by declaring, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." Up until then he was mostly criticizing how the post invasion was conducted. Now I've gotten a lot of people hot under the collar on this blog by pointing this out about Kerry, but he did not go hard after Bush on the Iraq invasion until it got close to the election. Had he made the argument to the American people as soon as he won the primary (actually, he should have started during the primary) arguing that the invasion was a disastrous mistake and how it makes us less safe (including feeding the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, causing instability in the Middle East, causing oil prices to rise, the cost of the war, and, of course, the deaths of our soldiers--just to name a few points), if he could have successfully made his argument, I believe he might have had a chance. But he had to have done it from the start convincing Americans that he was running, not for the power thrill of being king of the free world, but because his passion for this country drove him to save it from Bush's disaster. It had to be about the passion.
But he didn't because, in my opinion, he was the wrong candidate. He slowly shifted the focus of his campaign, and it made him look wishy washy, unsure of himself. I supported Wes Clark because he's brilliant, graduating top of his class from West Point and was a Rhodes scholar, served in the military 34 years (rising to 4 star general), and spoke out strongly against invading Iraq before the invasion occurred. A brilliant 4 star general verses a reckless ideologue with sub-par intelligence who wouldn't even serve in Nam. I still believe Gen. Clark could have successfully made the argument to the American people that I wish Kerry had succeeded in making.
That brings us to 2008, and Hillary Clinton is the front runner. What frightens the hell out of me concerning Hillary is that she has many of the weaknesses our last two candidates had, but Democrats are in a euphoric state of mind after the 2006 congressional election and Bush's low approval ratings, and Hillary is so closely associated with her husband that I'm afraid people are confusing the two. And we're forgetting, the political landscape hasn't change THAT much. The nation still leans toward the right, but the Democrats have an opportunity in this election to demonstrate that a Democratic President will do a better job and can really unite us, not just say it and do the opposite, and get the majority to lean more our way.
Hillary Clinton is not perceived to be particularly impassioned about anything except becoming president. She's a very careful and skillful politician and it shows, for good and for bad. On some tough issues, e.g., immigration, social security, how to end the war, her position is not perfectly clear, trying too hard not to offend too many people. This is a mistake Gore made to a lesser degree, but that Kerry came to embody. Clinton often points to her experience in the White House, yet those records are conveniently beyond our scrutiny. We've recently learned that she plants questioners in her audience, not unlike George W. Bush. This suggests to me a lack of confidence. The Clintons make a surprise move to New York, Hillary runs for the Senate and wins, and now it's the White House. These aspects of Hillary Clinton have barely been mentioned compared to what we'll hear during the general election, and I don't think it will go over too well with the average voter. Hillary has an image problem. She has baggage, some bogus some earned, that negatively reflects on who she is underneath her political suit. Republicans revile her unceasingly, and she could be the strongest thing they have going for them in this election. I think Democrats are choosing the wrong candidate for the wrong reasons, and puts a Democratic victory at risk, and why? We have candidates who are at least as qualified as she is, but without the personal baggage. It's just that no one else is married to Bill Clinton.
The fact that the candidates with the most experience are having such a tough time in this election does not reflect well on Democrats, and referring back to my first paragraph, the inability to choose the candidate who could best serve our country is not just a Republican problem, because Democrats suffer from it too. It's an American problem. Our judgment is too easily influenced by all the things money can buy, and that obfuscates our ability to see these people for whom they really are, the qualities that we need to be able to recognize in order to choose the best candidate for our Party and for our country.
We need a candidate who can bring this country together, but such talk is anathema to too many primary voters, even though, whether we want to admit it or not, it's what our country desperately needs. It's what's best, but we no longer seem interested in what's best for our country. It's an objective leap Americans seem unwilling or unable to make, but if we don't start making that our guiding principle, all these issues we're now spending time arguing about will soon seem so petty, and we'll be wondering, what the hell were we thinking? And we'll wish to God we had done things differently.
In case anyone made it this far and is wondering who I support in this primary, I'm in strong support of the candidate who I think will, both, make the best president based experience and performance, and particularly his knowledge on foreign affairs (after all, we let's not forget that we are in two wars--and that's as serious as it gets), and makes the strongest candidate in the general election because he has the most to offer the whole America, not just half. I'm supporting Sen. Biden. His character is impeccable, he has a long record of achievements that have helped Americans, including a history of being able to work across the aisle with Republicans, he's probably the most knowledgeable legislator we have on foreign policy, something that should be an absolute requirement for any American's vote during this presidential election cycle, and he's honest, a straight shooter. If all Democrats gave a truly objective evaluation of each candidate, Joseph Biden would be our nominee. And for what it's worth, if Republicans were smart, they'd nominate John McCain. It remains to be seen which is the smarter Party.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
