Thursday, May 8, 2008 12:50 AM
A quick observation on the interminable Democratic party nominating process to pick a candidate to oppose Crackbrain McCain in November 2008. If I were a Democrat, especially a "liberal" Democrat, the choice would be a snap.
There are no real, substantive policy differences between Hillary The Obliterator and Barack The Upstart. That includes the paramount foreign policy issues of Iraq, the Middle East, and Israel. Hence, this is a simple contest between two Washington personalities. On that basis, the nod should go to Barack The Upstart.
Why? Two obvious reasons.
1) Hillary has baggage and she has Bubba, an impeached President, which is more baggage. Her biggest baggage, aside from Bubba, is the fact that she is a fabulator, which is to say, a liar. Not that this is surprising, since she has immersed herself in the world of politics with Bubba since leaving Yale law school.
The most recent example of this prevaricating quirk was her story about landing in Kosovo under sniper fire. Total fabrication and utterly ridiculous. This may be regarded as a harmless peccadillo by some, but it seems to be a congenital problem for The Obliterator, as it was and is for Bubba.
2) Hillary voted to authorize the Cheney/Bush 2003 invasion of Iraq. That vote alone should disqualify her for the nomination. The war has blown up in Washington's face, so establishment Democrats now claim to be against the war Hillary voted for in 2002. That is the story the Democrats ran on to regain control of Capitol Hill in 2006.
But Barack The Upstart opposed the war from the start, albeit from the safe sidelines of Chicago. Hillary says she would not have voted for the war, if she knew then what she knows now. Maybe if she had talked in October 2002 to Senator Bob Graham of Florida, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who voted "no" on the war, Hillary's explanation would have an ounce of credibility.
As it is, who can possibly believe what she says about anything? In this respect, Hillary is almost as reprehensible as Cheney and Bush and their dubious surrogate, McCain.
So, aside from being duped, why would the average Democrat vote for The Obliterator? It could be nostalgia for Bubba and the Clinton years of relative prosperity and peace, when contrasted to the in-your-face arrogance, insanity, and fat-headedness of the Cheney Regency. That could be one explanation, of course.
But on balance, the only rational choice for a rank-and-file Democrat should be Barack The Upstart. The results on Tuesday in North Carolina and Indiana indicate that most Democratic voters do not buy Hillary's act any longer, which means, I guess, that the country can finally let go of Bubba. At the end of the day, the slash-and-burn campaign of The Obliterator was all about Bubba, putting him back in the White House, where he never belonged in the first place.
Then again, who does belong there? I agreed with H.L. Hunt when he said in August 1966 that America's last successful President was Calvin Coolidge. Now I would have to say Ronald Reagan. It has been a crash dive since then.
--Copyright 2008 Patrick Foy