Democrat in the White House

It seems like the ‘06 elections have barely ended, but about 83 different people have announced they are running for President, including Tom “Blow up Mecca” Tancredo, Dennis “Little Person” Kucinich and Barack “Rising Star” Obama. So here at GMTD, I have decided to throw my considerable political weight behind the same person I voted for in the 2004 primaries: John Edwards. Why John Edwards? In addition to his boyish good looks, Edwards is the only major candidate that continues to talk about domestic poverty and economic inequality. His stump speech in 2004 dealt with the "two Americas" – the one America that is for the rich and privileged and the other America, for everyone else. Rich kids went to better schools, which offered classes in Latin and gymnastics. Poor kids went to schools that were falling apart and used textbooks that had Richard Nixon as President. Millions of children are born into poverty every year in this country, many unsure where their next meal is coming from. And one politician had the guts to speak about such debilitating poverty in the richest country in the world. And, not only does he continue to talk about it, he is putting his money where his mouth is. He directed UNC’s Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity after his failed VP run in 2004. He crisscrossed the country over the past year to encourage states to increase the minimum wage, after the Republican Congress refused to do so. Even now, he is encouraging supporters to hold canned food drives and conserve energy. More than a politician, Edwards actually cares about the issues. And he is a realist. He knows that we can’t have everything all at once. In order to keep the deficit in check, he is proposing to eliminate Bush’s tax cuts for the top 2 percent of earners – those making about $200,000 per year. Unlike the Republicans who have controlled Washington for the past 6 years, Edwards is pledged to fiscal responsibility. As for his relative inexperience in international affairs, Edwards was one of the first Democrats to come out against the Iraq war, after being deceived (like the rest of us) by this administration’s cherry-picking of intelligence. While in the Senate, Edwards authored legislation on biosecurity and port security, topics this administration and the Republican Congress had largely ignored. Over the coming months, I will make passing references to why Edwards should be elected. He brings the knowledge of D.C., but not the taint of an insider. He is willing to talk about topics that aren’t sexy because he knows they are important. And he has an intelligence and depth that is sadly lacking in the current president. He is a fresh face, bringing important topics into the public forum for discussion. I will be volunteering for him, working to ensure that we close the economic gap between rich and poor in this country, ensuring that everyone has a shot at the American Dream. I urge you to do the same.

Presidentially speaking I would like a libertarian Republican; failing that, I would like a conservative Republican; failing that I would like a conservative Democrat; failing that I would like a libertarian Democrat; failing that, I would have the current field of contenders. I would think that the Democrat base should be excited and energized by the current stable of candidates for the Presidency because most if not all of the serious candidates have historically been true liberals. If I was to pick one I would pick Dennis Kucinich, but that is because he would lose, and since Dan asked that I seriously consider which of the Democrats I would prefer assuming that it is unavoidable that one will be elected, I should give a more serious option. So, let us take a quick glance at the two front runners – Senators Obama and Clinton. Senator Obama strikes me, in the little that I have read and heard about thus far in the campaign, as a true believer. My perception of Senator Obama is that he is truly devoted to the agenda that he has laid out and that he will pursue his beliefs without compromise. This type of impenetrable liberalism is a terrible direction for our nation. The excesses of liberalism are on full display in Western Europe where socialized welfare and medicine, along with strong economic disincentives like taxes and required vacation, have crippled their economies, making them almost irrelevant in the global economy. I fear that Senator Obama would not offer us fair and just leadership. His history with corrupt individuals offers me no hope that he would be able to resist temptation when given Presidential power. On the other hand, I never thought I would prefer Hilary Clinton over anyone for President, but here I am suggesting she may be the best of the worst. The Clintons are consistent - consistently worried about two things: power and legacy. Bill obsessed over his legacy as his Presidency wound down, and he pressed for international agreements that he could claim as part of his accomplishments. Hilary, I am confident, would do the same. She has already demonstrated a remarkable ability to hide her personal feelings, beliefs and convictions (if she has any) when it is not politically expedient. Regardless of her stated policy objectives, I could easily see her administering over a Presidency that does not radically move us towards socializing every institution of American policy while preserving a relatively low tax regime. This would be the result of an aggressive conservative movement, energized by the fear of what a Democrat in the White House could accomplish, taking strong action to reverse trends in Congress and unify the Republican party, if only temporarily. Success breeds complacency, but fear breeds action. President Hilary would inspire great fear in the Republican base and she would probably not pose as great a threat as some of the other frontrunners who are true ideologues. I, by no means, want to sound as if I doubt Senator Clinton’s commitment or resolve around her key issues, however, when asked to measure the Democrats, I find her candidacy to be more tolerable than some of the others whom I consider stronger threats to the values that I believe make America great.