As the Bill and Hillary Show lurches toward Super Tuesday, one question looms larger and larger in the minds of the American electorate...which one of these people is actually running?
I know what the campaign posters say. I know who is standing at the podium during the endless debates. (The one in the dress, right? See also "how to identify Rudy G.") However, in the day to day news coverage the quotes from the Clinton camp are as likely to be sourced to Him as Her.
This situation is considerably more troubling to the electorate than to the candidate. If Hillary wanted to show how decisive she can be, what better way than to tell hubby to shut up and sit down?After all, Hillary is a woman (probably) and strength of will is a factor in this race. No one is confusing Mrs. Clinton with Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meir. If she wishes to be taken seriously as a leader, she must first lead her noisy husband toward a corner for a well-needed time out.
Say what you will about the Bushes (and I usually do), George W. didn't have his dad running point in 2000. The first time you even saw George and Barbara was at the inauguration. But that is because Bush Sr. knew when to get off the stage. Bill Clinton apparently sees his wife's run for the presidency as an opportunity to return to the glory days of 1992. I guess it's hard to score with the babes when you have to explain to them why you're a celebrity.
The Clintons must see this "two candidate" strategy as a loser. Barak Obama has been kind up to this point. His comments about running against Clintons deux have been limited to occasional references to Bill's veracity. (Nothing new there!) Wait until the Republicans join the fun. The prospect of revisiting Bill Clinton's many sins is enough to electrify the bolts in Karl Rove's neck.
Hillary's road to the White House will be tough enough without her wayward husband standing on the podium next to her with his metaphoric fly open.
Bill should confine his speaking engagements to venues of old ladies and minorities. He should stick to praising his wife for not publicly kicking his ass for all the humiliation he caused her. "My wife has been vetted, not only by 35 years of public life but by 33 years of marriage to me."
As for me, I like Bill Clinton. What's not to like? He's engaging, funny and all too human. I also liked high school. That doesn't mean I want to relive it. There's a reason that we look back fondly on our last car or our former lovers. The mind has a short memory for pain.
Sadly, Republicans show no such inclination. If you want to be reminded in excruciating detail how Bill Clinton was impeached, disbarred and discredited in 1999 just have him stand too close to the Junior Senator from New York while she is running for president. All that mud is bound to leave stains.
Showing posts with label Election process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election process. Show all posts
Friday, January 18, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
...or should the primary process be renamed "Survivor, Washington D.C."?
As we eagerly anticipate February 5th, "Super Tuesday", 26 states will hold caucuses or primaries. Isitjustme is dreading February 6th, "Just Kill Me" Wednesday when the collective intelligence of my fellow Americans will be visible to the world. Nothing in the primary process thus far has led me to believe that our choices for candidates in 2008 will reflect much credit on our National IQ.
This was supposed to be the "anybody but George" election. This was to be "Listerine" vote where we wash the bad taste of the last eight years from our collective mouths. This was to be the monent when we said to the world, "We don't know what we were thinking in 2000 & 2004 but, seriously, we're over it."
Instead, we are traveling down the same road that brought us George the Lesser.
Have you ever wondered why all of the great democracies of the world have adopted the British system of government instead of ours? Countries like India, France, Greece, Denmark and Burkina Faso all have modeled their governing process after the parliamentary structure. Many of these governments were relics of the British Empire but all have maintained the system. Could it be that most countries see the wisdom of electing their leaders from the most experienced members of the legislature? Before you get to be Prime Minister, you learn your trade on the back bench. You gain experience as part of a governing process and, if you show skill as a leader, negotiator, consensus-builder and compromiser, you move up the ladder. Charisma helps but so does gravitas. Hell, we choose NFL head coaches with more care.
America has shown a particular disdain for experience. We haven't elected a senator to the presidency since Jack Kennedy. George H.W. Bush (George the Greater) was awash in experience but it was hardly the deciding factor in his election. Our curricula vitae for presidents have included: a peanut farmer, an actor, a frat boy baseball team owner and a man who never held a private sector job.
These men were all governors with zero understanding of foreign policy. Reading the New York Times (or in GWB's case, Sports Illustrated) hardly fills the gap. Being elected governor of Arkansas doesn't even qualify you to run Arkansas. By the time these guys get the hang of running the country, their first term is practically over. I know. FDR was governor of New York and Lincoln was a just country lawyer but even blind squirrels find nuts occasionally.
The experience wonks in this election are: John McCain, period. Hillary doesn't get points for being First Lady. I'm sorry but being in the pit crew just isn't the same as driving the car. The two other candidates with real chops were Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Both were swept away faster than you can say New Hampshire Primary. Rudy Guiliani ran one city...one city. (He also ran three marriages; two into the ground.) If Osama has attacked Denver, Rudy's name would be unknown everywhere west of Newark.
Note: Why does everyone laugh when Dennis Kucinich says he saw a UFO but no one laughs when Mike Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution?
The American presidential process is "all sizzle, no steak". (Or in GWB's case, "All hat, no cattle"). With the exception of John McCain, none of the front runners is qualified to be president today. (George W. Bush has been in the job for seven years and he's still not qualified.)
People should define the issues that a president will face and elect the person best able to meet those challenges. If we don't we should be prepared for another Texas lightweight or a president who has spent so much time on his knees that it has become a habit.
This was supposed to be the "anybody but George" election. This was to be "Listerine" vote where we wash the bad taste of the last eight years from our collective mouths. This was to be the monent when we said to the world, "We don't know what we were thinking in 2000 & 2004 but, seriously, we're over it."
Instead, we are traveling down the same road that brought us George the Lesser.
Have you ever wondered why all of the great democracies of the world have adopted the British system of government instead of ours? Countries like India, France, Greece, Denmark and Burkina Faso all have modeled their governing process after the parliamentary structure. Many of these governments were relics of the British Empire but all have maintained the system. Could it be that most countries see the wisdom of electing their leaders from the most experienced members of the legislature? Before you get to be Prime Minister, you learn your trade on the back bench. You gain experience as part of a governing process and, if you show skill as a leader, negotiator, consensus-builder and compromiser, you move up the ladder. Charisma helps but so does gravitas. Hell, we choose NFL head coaches with more care.
America has shown a particular disdain for experience. We haven't elected a senator to the presidency since Jack Kennedy. George H.W. Bush (George the Greater) was awash in experience but it was hardly the deciding factor in his election. Our curricula vitae for presidents have included: a peanut farmer, an actor, a frat boy baseball team owner and a man who never held a private sector job.
These men were all governors with zero understanding of foreign policy. Reading the New York Times (or in GWB's case, Sports Illustrated) hardly fills the gap. Being elected governor of Arkansas doesn't even qualify you to run Arkansas. By the time these guys get the hang of running the country, their first term is practically over. I know. FDR was governor of New York and Lincoln was a just country lawyer but even blind squirrels find nuts occasionally.
The experience wonks in this election are: John McCain, period. Hillary doesn't get points for being First Lady. I'm sorry but being in the pit crew just isn't the same as driving the car. The two other candidates with real chops were Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Both were swept away faster than you can say New Hampshire Primary. Rudy Guiliani ran one city...one city. (He also ran three marriages; two into the ground.) If Osama has attacked Denver, Rudy's name would be unknown everywhere west of Newark.
Note: Why does everyone laugh when Dennis Kucinich says he saw a UFO but no one laughs when Mike Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution?
The American presidential process is "all sizzle, no steak". (Or in GWB's case, "All hat, no cattle"). With the exception of John McCain, none of the front runners is qualified to be president today. (George W. Bush has been in the job for seven years and he's still not qualified.)
People should define the issues that a president will face and elect the person best able to meet those challenges. If we don't we should be prepared for another Texas lightweight or a president who has spent so much time on his knees that it has become a habit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)