Barack Obama cost me another peaceful night's sleep after last week's Iowa caucus. You might remember my post written last May where I recounted a dream I had of the guy (it's also when we here at the Bawdy Cloister officially endorsed Bill Richardson's candidacy-- can't believe that's been eight months ago!)
Over those months I've hoped that folks would catch on to the fact that Bill Richardson has the best resume of all the Democratic candidates. When I talked to people individually, both Republicans and Democrats, they liked what they heard. But ultimately my talks always ended with a question I could never answer, "Why isn't he a contender?"
In my mind he still is a contender. I hoped somewhere during the countless debates or on the campaign trail something would trigger a surge in his popularity. But after his poor showing in Iowa last week I came to terms with the possibility that he may not make it to the end. Don't get me wrong, if he's still on the ticket when I get my chance to vote in March, he's got my full support. I realize though that I need to start putting thought into a second choice.
In my post last May I discussed my gut reaction to the top three Democratic contenders. It's time to take a look at them more analytically:
Hillary Clinton
Even before the candidates threw their hats in the ring, I knew I'd vote for ANYBODY but Hillary Clinton et vir. I supported Bill Clinton back in 1992. That was the first Presidential election I was old enough to vote in and I was an outspoken supporter. I canvassed neighborhoods, organized rallies and even pretended to recognize Tommy Lee Jones when he made a surprise celebrity appearance in Clinton's San Antonio headquarters. Keep in mind in 1992 Tommy was a virtual nobody and I was disappointed because when they announced his name I was expecting Jamie Lee Curtis to walk in the door.
But I digress. The reason I was so pumped for Clinton at that time is because he represented change. After 12 years of Republican rule I simply wanted a Democrat in office-- any Democrat. I read his book Putting People First in which he outlined his vision. I disagreed with some of what he proposed (most memorably his support for NAFTA,) but I agreed with the majority of it. In retrospect, I agreed with less than I realized because I was too young to understand his plan for national health care, welfare reform and other complex issues where the devil's in the details.
Very soon after his election he delivered the first of many disappointments when he enacted "Don't Ask Don't Tell." In his book he stated his ardent support for Gay & Lesbian Rights; once in office he caved in quickly. My Dad, Old Methodist Theologian, argued with me that half a loaf is better than none. I took his point under advisement. But soon I realized how quick Clinton was to concede to the right. Hillary's proposed health care reform was the epitome of such compromise by allowing HMOs and pharmaceutical companies to continue to wield power even after "reform." What's worse, as Clinton ceded ground in his spirit of compromise, the Republicans took full advantage to shift ever further to the right.
By the end of Clinton's first administration I was no longer his supporter. Lesson learned, there is no compromising with Republicans because you only make them stronger. Needless to say, I didn't think Clinton deserved a second term, he sure doesn't deserve a third.
Barack Obama
It's no surprise to me that this guy has the support he has from the youth. He speaks passionately about change and he's a fresh face on the scene. His audience swoons at his words as I did listening to Bill Clinton speak of change back in '92. But he's also waving big red flags. He speaks incessantly about working hand-in-hand with Republicans. Note to Barack- the Republicans are weaker now than they have been in ages. Now's the time to strike back and regain lost territory. There's indiscreet ways of doing so too without turning off independents and Republicans. Make a list of 5 popular ideas with mass appeal and charge! There's absolutely no need now to mention the words "compromise" and "Republican" in the same sentence. Of course I fear a repeat of Clinton's first administration with Obama.
But there are other red flags waving. The guy is inexperienced and naive. A few years in the Illinois legislature and half a term in the U.S. Senate (half of that half spent on the Presidential campaign trail) may make for a great orator, but it's not a happy resume for the highest executive position in the nation. I was surprised more people didn't write him off as a quack last summer when he started speaking recklessly about foreign affairs. Bill Clinton at least had strong executive experience and demonstrable achievements in his work record. Moreover he had the common sense to know when to keep his trap shut before saying something inflaming.
John Edwards
Key difference between John and Barack is that John has some fight to him. You won't hear him talk of compromise with the Republicans. He's an advocate.
Problem with John is that he's got little more experience than Barack. He hasn't slipped up in his oratory yet, but hasn't proven himself as a leader either. As much as I like what John has to say, he's got as good a chance at winning in the end as Bill Richardson. Rather than blather on more, I'll just go ahead and cut him out of consideration.
The Decision
Oh, my God....
Recent Comments