As a novice writer it is almost instinctive to go back and read what you have written in the past and judge not only your authorship skills but also your growth as a person since you wrote them. Having more knowledge or understanding now, I look at past opinions and I yearn to rewrite them. But that is not the way of journalistic integrity. History is history and you cannot go back and say – well, maybe I was wrong… Now I’m right!

Nevertheless, I often find that my first impressions of a subject were more ‘spot on’ than I realized. Take for instance my early analysis of both the Barak Obama and the Ron Paul campaigns (Bennett, Feb 2007, Nov 2007). I look back on those remarks and still find them 80-90% accurate. But I still hesitate to tackle a subject or pose an opinion that I do not fully understand. It occurred to me that most professional political pundits do not have that concern so why should I?

Today the race for the White House in 2008 is a three horse race between Senators’ Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John McCain. I’m one of what Doug Schoen of the Washington Post calls a “Disaffected” voter. Or in Doug’s more acronymistic terms, a RAM (restless and anxious moderate). In other words, I could care less about party affiliations; endorsements from the far right or far left; or the deeds and misdeeds of the past. Just as with my writing – no one can go back and rewrite history. I understand that with knowledge and experience actions and ambitions will change. So let’s get on with real debate and analyze who can accomplish real change.

McCain:

A Viet Nam era prisoner of war and the most pragmatic of the Republican camp, McCain is probably the best equipped to lead bipartisan change of any remaining candidate. The fact the far right of the Republican Party finds him unacceptable is in itself enough for me to like him. The far Right constantly grumbles about McCain’s propensity to work with Democrats to get things done. Sacrilege!

However, McCain has an Achilles heal. He does not (yet) appeal to the left-center of the electorate. He is viewed as a hawk with a “stay in Iraq” policy – and in this day of disgust with war mongering and intervention, he will be a hard sell in November.

Clinton:

Her unofficial involvement in her husband’s Presidential ‘circle of advisors’ gives Hillary Clinton a unique perspective of the life and pressures of the Presidency. She is extremely bright and well equipped to do battle with any political foe. But this is a double edged sword. She owes allegiance to a huge political machine going back dozens of years. That bill (no pun intended) will come due in 2009.

If Bill Clinton could involve her in decisions during his presidency, rest assured she will involve him. Make no mistake – Bill Clinton will be far more powerful than the Vice President in a Clinton White House.

Now, I am not a gender basher. My mother was, and my wife is, strong and capable in their own right. I would tender any task, great or small to any woman on equal grounds with any man. However, Hillary’s propensity to become emotional in public leaves me with a fear. I see her breaking down and crying when the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the National Security Counsel give her bad news – or Congress does not agree with her. I hope I’m wrong about that.

In contrast to McCain, I also see Clinton as the least likely to spawn bipartisanship. So intense is the dislike of the Clintons by the Right, she will be hard pressed to accomplish any major changes in the status quo.

Obama:

A man who can send your championship debate team home in body bags, Barak Obama is the quintessential orator. Making the likes of Regan and Kennedy look like spelling bee participants, Obama has a natural gift for communication and reconciliation. Not bad traits for a president, no matter what your experience in politics.

While Obama eloquently cites the goals and objectives of an Obama presidency, his lack of specific approaches and plans is disheartening. His lack of substance is not unlike the problems Regan had during his first campaign. He could talk a good show, but had to rely on others to come up with plausible (and popular) solutions.

With the right (again, no pun intended) circle of advisors and professional bureaucrats, Obama may be more effective at raising the public opinion of the Administration and keeping it there, than any other candidate.

Conclusions

In reality, the Presidency – in itself – is not as powerful and omnipotent as the general public may think. In areas other than foreign policy, the president has little authority. He/She is an “Administrator” of domestic law and a collector of taxes (thus the term ‘Administration’). Where the power (and in recent memory the problems) come into play is in the area of foreign policy and being Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful Military in the world.

The fact that so much of the campaign rhetoric surrounds domestic policy, economics and such useless topics as gay marriage, shows that not only does the electorate have the wrong focus, but so do most of the entertainment & news media. The President can only enforce current law. The Presidency cannot make new law, levy or reduce taxes or adopt new amendments. The President’s only control over domestic issues is the veto. And, of course, his/her popularity with the People – A significant weapon against any politician looking to get reelected.

We need to frame the debates and understand the candidates positions on Foreign Policy, the Military Industrial Complex (yes, Mr. Eisenhower – it has come to pass) and the focus of cabinet appointments in each cabinet position. Something that is NEVER discussed yet is the most profound extension of personal views that any President undertakes.

I’m sorry to say that as long as the Hollywood Media (Fox News, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, et al) declare what is important – and organize debates in such a way as to incite newsworthy confrontations rather than enlighten the electorate with a candidate’s approaches to issues – we will remain a democracy of idol worshipers, pollsters and Nielsen ratings.

I see no end in sight. Indeed, we cannot change the past.

JB

References:

Bennett, J. (Feb 2007). Opinion: Senator Barack Obama; Blog: Aberant News; Retrieved February 9, 2008 from: http://www.aberantnews.org/?page_id=20

Bennett, J. (Nov 2007). The extraordinary 2008 campaign of Representative Ron Paul, Blog: Aberant News; Retrieved February 9, 2008 from: http://www.aberantnews.org/?p=37

Schoen, Douglas. (2008). The Disaffected Voters Who’ll Decide 2008, The Washington Post, Sunday, February 10, 2008; Page B03; Retrieved February 9, 2008 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803270.html