The whole world in his hands...
Don't know if you caught it, but Hillary tossed out a tantilizing thought in her campaign this week: Bill as worldwide ambassador. The mere idea of Bill out there feeling the world's pain, brokering peace and hugging babies in worn-torn lands is almost too thrilling to bear.
But though I've never tried to hide my deep and abiding affection for Bill, I must allow my intellect to overcome my heart in this matter. I stand fast on this conviction: endorsing Hillary as the Democratic candidate for President in 2008 would be a big, big mistake. Have no doubt, this is very, very hard for me to say. After all, I quite proudly sported a "Vote for Hillary's Husband" t-shirt in 1992. But the truth is she's polarizing, seems ingenuine, and, let's face it, the Clinton I Era left some pretty serious baggage to bear.
On the other hand, I'm not sure who to suggest at this point. Obama seems like a good bet, if he can grow into his political britches. John Edwards? Ummmm....haircuts? Too tough to call.
Comments
Ah Ha! Finally a post related to the title of this blog! I've been waiting since I starting reading your blog! I too, am a Big Bill Fan, but I'm not quite as pessimistic as you about Hillary. Things change with the wind in these presidential elections (remember that double digit lead Dukakis had?) and the wind hasn't even started to blow yet. So far, I don't think there is another viable contender, although BO is gaining some ground, but will it be enough and in time for the early primaries?
Posted by: Dan Myers | April 24, 2007 09:47 AM
You're right, Dan, it's been far too long since I've had a Bill post - August '06 from my records. With the '08 elections coming up, I have no doubt that he will be increasingly present on my mind and my blog. Your optimism is inspiring, and maybe I should be more open to Hill. I guess I'm just really, really concerned about the Dems having a clear shot at the White House and worry that she might have too much liability to carry them there. Then again, she's a real tough political animal and, well, I really would love to see more of Bill again. Hill & Bill 2008!
Posted by: self | April 24, 2007 09:59 AM
I went to listen to both John Edwards and Barak Obama (twice) when they've come to the Iowa City area. Obama puts forth a grand vision for changing politics and engaging citizens. I agree with the things he is saying, especially that cynicism is one of the major problems with politics today. But I don't know how he changing that, other than being a new face. Plus, I would want to see who he puts in his cabinet to help him on foreign affairs.
Edwards seemed much more...maybe seasoned is the word? He didn't seem to engage the crowd as did Obama. Instead of directly answering questions, I felt he sort of stuck to his talking points.
Posted by: Jerry Steele | April 24, 2007 11:07 AM
Hey Jerry. That's definitely one thing I miss about living in Iowa City - the frequent visits of political candidates gearing up for the caucuses. Have you ever attended the caucus? We did in 2000 - and what a year to do so! I think your points about Obama and Edwards are right on. It will be interesting to see what plays out, and you guys will have a front row seat!
Posted by: self | April 24, 2007 11:11 AM
Ok, so here comes the conservative's two cents...
I think that what has shot the Dems in the foot in the recent past is their inability to rally around one person and one set of issues. You guys are usually so passionate about one or two things, that the candidates end up ostracizing themselves and putting up walls instead of trying to unite for the good of the party.
While being passionate about things is a good thing, it's cost the Dems a few key elections.
If you could find someone w/ the social sensitivity of Obama (skin color aside), the political suave of Edwards and the appeal to minorities that both Billery and Obama have, you guys would have a winner. But I'm not convinced that any of those three are the ones to do it.
But who the heck am I to assess that?
Posted by: Sarah (The Other One) | April 26, 2007 08:49 PM
Hey Sarah (The Other One)! I was waiting for you to weigh in. I always appreciate your point of view - and this time I actually agree in terms of unity being a key factor in electoral success. I do think the Dems need some kind of rallying cry that isn't just a reaction to the other side's failings. But I'm also not interesed in unity that is ideological and inflexible...
Posted by: self | April 27, 2007 02:01 PM
I'm not interested in ideological AND inflexible either, but the country was built on ideology per se, so it's not all that bad... Inflexibility anywhere - no matter which party - is probably not the best answer. Particularly when you're trying to lead a nation of individuals - not cattle who roam wherever the grass is green.
Now to get my political jab in... I think pinning dates on the withdrawl from Iraq may border on inflexible... :)
You know I love you.
Posted by: Sarah (The Other One) | April 30, 2007 06:40 PM
Hey Sarah - you know, I rethought my ideological AND inflexible comment later, and think that I meant ideologically inflexible. The thing is, we pretty much agree on both of your points - inflexibility no matter what party=bad and pinning dates may=inflexible.
Right back at 'ya.
Posted by: self | May 1, 2007 01:20 PM
It's so nice to agree after so many years... ;) Ha ha ha. Actually, I think we're probably closer in our views than either of us realizes. It's the politics that gets in the way most of the time. And I kind of dig the term "ideological inflexibility" and agree that it doesn't leave much room for humility or ideals...
Posted by: Sarah (The Other One) | May 1, 2007 04:10 PM