© B. Isbell 7/17/07
Let’s be honest, the Democrats have the momentum this election cycle. It is their race to lose. Eight years of Bush-Cheney have left the country and the Republican party in shambles. It is a trust issue and now even the Republican leaders in Congress do not trust Bush’s ability to properly manage this war. And one gets the strong feeling that if it were up to Cheney, we’d be attacking Iran any day now. I hope the administration does the right thing before the election, but you know they won’t and instead they’ll leave that mess for the next President. Where’s Monica to boost Presidential “confidence” and approval ratings when you need her?
The whole country is down on Bush, which sounds more fun than it actually is. To borrow a Republican mantra, we need leadership.On the democratic side, this is a three horse race: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. While the woman in me would love to see our first female President, Hillary brings some tremendous negatives to the table from the standpoint of a general election. And trust me, this is not about winning the Democratic ticket, it IS about winning the Presidency. As popular as Bill Clinton is in certain segments of our society, the core Republican base is not one of them. We love Bill Clinton as the senior world statesman, but the prospect of Bill Clinton as our next First Lady seems more than a little untoward. Like it or not, there is a double-standard in America when it comes to sexual infidelity, and having a First Lady (or First Gentleman) who has actually been unfaithful in the White House itself, seems contrary to the virtuous example that the First Lady is suppose to set. And, Bill simply would not be able to fulfill the traditional roles of the First Lady position, not so much because he’s a man, but because he’s an ex-President, and as my Momma used to say, etiquette is actually important. Second, having a former President in this role would, despite all the hope and hype, compromise Hillary’s ability to lead and the world’s ability to take her seriously. If, heaven forbid, Bill and Hillary disagreed on any important issue (and while one trusts they would not do so publicly, the possibility that a behind the scenes dispute might become public looms large), who do you think the world’s leaders or the majority of U.S. citizens would rally behind? The answer is not nearly as important as the problem itself. Third, Hillary was, initially, pro-War. Of the three leading democratic prospects, she was the only one who voted in favor of this war who has refused to repudiate the propriety of her initial stance; and this undercuts her credibility on probably one of the strongest, if not the strongest, political issues that the Democrats have going for them this particular election cycle.
I love Barack Obama. I love his energy, his enthusiasm, and fundraising ability. I like the prospect of having our first Black President as much as I like and can’t wait for us to elect our first Female President. I think that both race and sex ought to be written out of all of our laws except where absolutely necessary, and personally, I question when or where these categories EVER are necessary. And in the world of politics, they aren’t. I do, however, question Mr. Obama’s leadership experience. Not so much his ability, or potential to grow into the job, but his experience. Potential and wishful thinking is not enough when we are determining who will be the next leader of the free world. 10 or 20 years from now, perhaps this would not be an issue, but today it is. It certainly is in a general election. Serving one term in the Senate does not qualify one to be President. He has not had the experience of running a full government and handling all political issues across the spectrum as if he had been a State governor or even as a mayor. He does not have the experience or training in foreign policy that is necessary to garner credibility among world leaders. He has never been an ambassador, or foreign statesman, and is lacking in time and leadership experience in Congressional foreign relations oversight. And while I personally like the historical idea of a Clinton-Obama (or vice-versa) ticket, as much as I hate to admit it, I think Bill Maher is right when he says it’s too much, too soon, to expect the general electorate to support a black/female ticket because it should.
The best choice for the Democrats, if they truly want to win this election, is John Edwards. He has the Senate foreign relations and leadership credibility necessary to do the job and to be taken seriously by other world leaders. He has the political experience necessary to run the government. Further, he is a Southern Democrat, and historically, no Democrat has ever won the Presidency without the support of the Southern political voting block. He has strong proven credibility on the environment, which will and should be a central issue in the upcoming election. Thanks Al for making us realize it. As to the war, while he did initially vote in favor of invading Iraq, based on false information about alleged nuclear threats, at least he has had the good sense to admit that he did so in error. Yes, he’s a trial lawyer. But tort reform is not the issue that it was; after all, I hope most folks now realize that judges have all the power to dismiss frivolous lawsuits and sanction lawyers who bring them, and ultimately juries, like us, have to find such claims meritorious. Seems like the tort reformers never want to attack the judges or juries actually behind these awards, nor the egregious conduct of the businesses responsible. I’ll offer you $300,000 to kill or seriously maim you or your family if you think caps are fair. Trial lawyers are advocates, and the best of them, like John Edwards make a nice living. Further, from a fund-raising standpoint, trial lawyers are the largest contributors to the Democratic coffers, and as distasteful as it is, a Presidential election cannot be won without money, and lots of it. While we should change this, it won’t happen before 2008. If the Democrats truly want to win in 2008, then Edwards-Obama is just the ticket.
On the Republican side, what a mess. I don’t think ANY of the current candidates have the ability to win. The best two Republican candidates, Fred Thompson and Colin Powell, aren’t even in the race. I think we all realize that Colin Powell was sort of set up by this administration’s feeding him false information prior to his U.N. presentation on the war. Would the rest of the world see it that way, I’m not sure. His military experience certainly would overshadow that of any of the leading Democrats, and I think most of us feel that had he truly been in charge, we would not be in this mess. I like Fred Thompson the actor. Republicans seem to like to elect actors, e.g., Reagan. And he definitely would severely cut into John Edwards’ strength in the Southern states. But Colin Powell does not seem to want to run and Thompson has not announced yet. Given the remaining choices in the Republican field, maybe McCain or Romney, but even then, I just don’t think any of these candidates, or combination thereof, can garner the needed support in this political climate to win the general election. This election is the Democrats to lose. The country wants change. If you want change, give your change, your support, and your vote, to our next President and Vice-President: John Edwards and Barack Obama.
B