Since there's only one week left until delegates finally go into play and momentum trumps message, it's time to reflect on who is the best overall candidate for the Democratic nomination to be President of the United States.
So, before you caucus or vote, please consider the following realities of the potential electability and effectiveness of the Top 3 front runners:
Edwards is too hot, Hillary is too cold and Obama is just right.
Edwards is too hot, Hillary is too cold and Obama is just right.
How so? Well....
***JOHN EDWARDS IS TOO HOT TO BE PRESIDENT***
And I don't mean that I'm deterred by his beautiful smile.
He's a populist....game over. America has never voted for this kind of message because they happen to like the free market and don't want politicians trashing it at nauseum. We need to reform the system, but he wants an outright war on corporations....the same people he will need unless he decides to socialize our entire economy. To paraphrase Joe Biden, only three words come out of his mouth: a noun, a verb and "greed." The only problem is, the leader of the free world has other responsibilities than stopping outsourcing.
Meanwhile, he has spent five years apparently running for "President of Iowa" and has no apparent other profession, yet he's running third in most polls there and doesn't have enough national fundraising support to compete in the primaries or general election.
His intentions and charisma are good, but the message and qualifications don't measure up. It would be great to see his supporters join with Obama so we have a better chance at change.
***HILLARY CLINTON IS TOO COLD TO BE PRESIDENT***
I doubt people need a run down of the last 15 years, but let's face the facts for a minute.
Likability is a key factor in who wins presidential elections. How else do you explain Bush beating Gore and Kerry? A couple guys named Reagan and Kennedy won a few elections this way too.
And Hillary ranks far below them in that department. The establishment tone, grating speaking style, the cackle, the arrogance, partisan attacks and indecisive triangulation (remember the answer on immigrant driver's licenses and when she told us that presidents are not supposed to say what they really think?)....they don't attract the right, middle OR left. Her grassroots support is light at best.
Is it possible that we'd nominate the candidate who inspires the GOP's base more than ours? Will we dump the unprecedented 450,000+ donors and millions of grassroots followers of one candidate in favor of the handful of lobbyists and party regulars that support the other?
If we want to send a personal invitation to Mike Bloomberg to run as the true "change" candidate in March, then this would be his dream scenario.
Meanwhile, how do we think those Red State Dems will do riding her coattails in all those Gubernatorial, Senate and House races? Hillary/Warner in Virginia might hurt us more than it helps.
So, are we up for "rolling the dice" on supposed "strength and experience" when people don't like the person with all the great strength and experience?
But let's remember a couple of our recent heroes that have had strength and experience.....Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
Strength and experience are not leadership qualities....they're traits that require judgment to back them up.
The problem is, the record doesn't really demonstrate much of either.
From what we've seen on the campaign trail, the next 4-8 years under a new Clinton administration won't be very impressive at all.
As when the polls tightened and the pressure was on, the Clintons have become desperate.
So, we can probably enjoy many more years of opponents getting attacked for their kindergarten aspirations while surrogates use fear and faux-compliments to subtlely refer to them as a cocaine-dealing, madrassa-schooled Muslim relative of Saddam Hussein....for example.
Swift boats, anyone? Maybe we'll hear next how great Obama is doing even though African Americans have previously done so poorly in statewide and national politics.
Meanwhile, Bill has shown who really runs the show by recently making claims that he was against the Iraq War before it started (not true), would travel the world with George H.W. Bush if Hillary was elected (unbeknownst to the president's dad) and his wife's media coverage was too harsh....as if he were the political equivalent of Linus' security blanket.
Bill Clinton is a great leader, but he can be a Global Ambassador as easily under an Obama Administration....minus the risk of being tabloid fodder days before the general election or while living in the White House.
And Hillary is no Bill. He likes people.....she likes using intimidation to gain loyalty and Rove-like shielding tactics like planting audience questions and avoiding interview programs like Meet The Press.
She wants to be the First Woman President for America, not the Greatest President for America.
But maybe we should all question whether we even want to make history by electing a woman president if she does so getting by on her husband's name and not her accomplishments.
According to Patrick Healy of the New York Times, her White House highlights include lacking security clearance or much evidence of her "extensive" role in the Administration, the Cheney-esque secret health care plan debacle and visiting 80 countries in eight year. Since Amazing Race contestants and the current First Lady Laura Bush have visited quite a few countries too, I guess they might be qualified to move to Chappaqua and run for her spot in the Senate.
She also takes more money from lobbyists than any candidate in either party and has been part of a reputation that involves getting contributions from unsavory elements. At the Yearly Kos Convention she said "money doesn't affect me."
Buying on brand didn't work so well last time, it's time for someone who can deliver change we can believe in.
***BARACK OBAMA IS JUST RIGHT***
Obama has the best balance of hot and cold. He wants change, but is pragmatic on how to get it. He has experience, but it comes from a diverse background and not being bogged down in the Washington game and reliance on the special interests. He represents change we can believe for 5 simple reasons:
1. He's the candidate with a CLEAR AND HOPEFUL VISION based on positive IDEAS, a character of INTEGRITY and good JUDGMENT.
2. He's the candidate with the GREATEST STRENGTH to vote in the Senate before other opponents, reject the typical campaign playbook and refuse to flip flop on the issues (David Brooks, New York Times, 12/18/07). In particular, despite facing criticism and being in the minority, he insisted that:
? Bush's Iraq War authorization and Iran-baiting resolution were mistakes from the beginning;
? Direct contact with our enemies is a strength that has worked with China and the Soviet Union;
? The mastermind of the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11, Bin Laden, should be subject to attack from the U.S. military if found in the uncontrolled tribal region of dictator-led Pakistan (Senator Biden agreed this was already official American policy);
? Using nuclear weapons against terrorists should not be on the table (i.e. terrorists don't necessarily run the states they live in...like the 9/11 hijackers).
3. He's the candidate with the MOST DIVERSE BACKGROUND AND VARIED EXPERIENCE. From a childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia; to South Chicago community organizer; to Harvard Law Review President, civil rights lawyer and constitutional professor; to 11 years in public office as a coalition-building Illinois and U.S. Senator (including accomplishments on lowering the tax burden and expanding childhood education for Illinois families and improving veterans' care, energy independence, government ethics and nuclear security for American families); Senator Obama UNDERSTANDS DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND WILL WORK FOR ALL PEOPLE in our nation and around the world.
Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton also became president at a younger age than Obama would be on January 20, 2009. Meanwhile, presidents with less Washington experience include one-term U.S. Congressman and failed Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln; Governors Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; and Generals George Washington, Andrew Jackson and Dwight Eisenhower.
4. He's the candidate of PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP who represents a NEW GENERATION that wants a NEW KIND OF POLITICS that rejects partisan bickering and gridlock to provide EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE AND POLICY REFORM on national/homeland security (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan), foreign diplomacy/aid (i.e. Iran, Darfur), health coverage/research, immigration, education, poverty/infrastructure (i.e. New Orleans, Minneapolis), global warming, energy, social security, fiscal responsibility, individual rights and government ethics.
5. He's the candidate who will be the ELECTABLE and BEST PRESIDENT FOR AMERICA after the failed Bush Administration by bringing together Democratic, Independent and Republican voters to create a MANDATE FOR CHANGE that can lead to consensus and results in Washington WITHOUT THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS (i.e. he has received $0 from Federal lobbyists from the healthcare and oil industries, etc.).
As you may know, you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation in America, so under the best possible scenarios the Democrats won't reach that benchmark anytime soon, so maybe we should consider some words about Senator Obama that have come across the aisle from Republican Senator Richard Lugar: "I like him, and I appreciate working with him. It seems to me that he was adept in finding partners and coalitions and actually was able to achieve results. He does have a sense of idealism and principled leadership, a vision of the future."
So, the answer on leadership, vision, ideas, integrity, judgment, strength, experience, consensus-building, government reform, results and electability is clearly Senator Obama.
And why do you feel a need to tear down other candidates? Insecure about your own? Or do you just like to slander?
Clinton Inc. really seems to think they are entitled to the nomination. They are operating kind of like a machine. Naturally, a lot of us do not appreciate that. She kind of asked for the flack she is getting.
There is no question in my mind that Obama is a once in a generation candidate. It will be our loss if we fail to nominate him.
In the next 8-16 years a woman who stands on her own will probably run and, consequently, carrying a lot less baggage, win on her own.
Edwards has spoken out against unbalanced trade. Simply asking for FAIR trade is going too far for you?
How dare him. Asking for fair trade and the rights of people to organize. That Commy! LoL.
2- As of Americans being in love with free trade, it must be that you associate with a different kind of Americans that I do. Most of the people that I know, mostly conservative, by the way, have been hit hard with the pro-corporation regulations that we have been taught to call in the U.S. "free trade."
It has a better name outside of this country: neoliberalism. This name stresses how it is a resurrected 19th century ideology. And now this 19th century idea is producing 19th century results: a massive income gap between the rich and the former middle class.
3 - You don't need to defend Obama's experience
Obama has a lot of public experience. This whole nonsense that he is inexperienced drives me insane. He has more experience in public life than Hilary Clinton, the person who seems to harp the most on his "inexperience." Count it: 8 years in the state senate and 3 in the U.S. Senate gives him a total of 11 years as an elected official. Avoid using the frames of your opponents. :)
I am just completely psyched about Barack Obama and think he has the gifts of a Bill Clinton + a stellar character + a long record of public service = Once in a Generation Leader.
This country is in a crisis. Our world is in a crisis. We need a President who is guided by his own inner strength as well as adept at recruiting top notch people and absorbing all the best advice.