The leader of the pack

It would be nice to be writing a post here about what a terrific candidate for president ___ ____ is. Wow, I really like them and think they have the solutions to the problems of the country. Yep, gonna turn things around and it's why I am so excited that they will be our next president. Hasn't happened and rarely has in all my many years of voting for president. It always comes down to lesser of evils and this looks like a year that won't be an exception unless something comes along to surprise me.

I ask myself the same question every four years-- Why is there rarely even one that I can feel good about? I choose none of the above-- let's start over. They never give us that option.

And even worse, the likelihood is, come November 2008, there will be two to choose from who I disliked the most from either pack. Leader of the pack does not mean the best person where it comes to politics. It's not the strongest or the most beautiful or the best orator. There is some weird chemistry that takes place when people start choosing presidential candidates. Odd things happen.

When Steven Colbert was running a satiric campaign for president in South Carolina, who most wanted him out of the race? It was Obama supporters. Why? Because of the voter who will write in Bambi and those are the ones most likely to vote for Obama? That was not a good piece of publicity for the Obama camp.

There are two main questions to answer, as I see it, when choosing a president. The first involves issues-- the second character.

If the best person in the world believes in political options that are generally the opposite of my beliefs, I will not support them. Being good in that case would have some reassurance to me, if they won, but I'll still be unhappy as good means they will be better at going the opposite direction of where I'd like to go.

To start, I look at the issues that matter most to me. This year that would be foreign policy. That's not my usual main concern, but the world right now has so many hot spots, not to mention the issue of does the United States want to be the self-appointed policeman of the world? Can it even? Suddenly that's an issue where it never would have been before politicians started milking the 9/11 cow. Where it comes to war, I do not have grandchildren yet old enough to be sent off to fight, but I can easily imagine how I'd feel if I did. Wars should only be fought in extreme necessity and Republicans don't seem to get that.

Second big issue is domestic but it's another that who would have guessed a few years back. Who will best assure our Constitutional rights as citizens? Who wants an imperial, secretive presidency? Who is trying to undo democracy because citizens don't vote right? There are several running, in both parties, who would not mind keeping that kind of power.

Giuliani is the worst of the bunch on the Republican side (and that's saying a lot) because he is totally opposite my view on those two issues-- and even on social ones, he might say he believes in gay rights or a woman's right to choose, but he would appoint more judges like Scalia and Thomas, who will make sure there are no laws giving those rights.

Giuliani is a Bush wantabe on every level; but if anything more scary when we get to the second potential deal breaker-- character. It's not because he likes to dress up as a woman or has had several wives and affairs. Those issues aren't big deals to me, but his general character, his choice of who he thinks has it, his belief that Bush has done a heck of a job, his power grab attempts in the past, no way would I vote for Giuliani, no matter who ran opposite him.

For me, character does come after issues but it is important. I would like to have someone in the presidency who can be wrong but doesn't lie. I would like them to be the kind of person who thinks through their position and has consistency. As I said before on an earlier post on this topic I want them to be hard working, competent, honest, and capable. Character counts in picking friends, a mate or a leader.

Our nation will have accountability in terms of karma if we only care about the candidate who will most profit us. The Nazis didn't come into power promising to kill all imperfect human beings. It was on promising economic power. I have learned to watch out for those who promise too much and look for what is going on behind the scenes. When we pick a candidate who is dishonest and cheats those around him, who lies and feels it's justified by his higher calling, we get what we deserve-- especially if we did it for our own perceived gain.

Worse we have a bunch now who play the religion card and want you to not look beyond their religious words. Huckabee comes to mind as an example of this with his good old boy manner, his piety, but from what I have read, his record in Arkansas leaves a lot of questions about his personal ethics or his judgment in who he trusts. People need to check, as the media, who tend to overlook what people do when someone seems nice, never will anymore than they did with Bush.

So on a basis of character and issues, who would be my candidate? I guess it has to be Obama of the ones most likely to win (assuming he is tough enough to do the job which is debatable still). Am I thrilled with him? No way but what are my choices?

Right now in the Democratic party, Hillary is ahead of the pack only because there are so many from which to choose for the anybody-but-Hillary voters. If the candidates with no chance would drop out, leaving one or at the most two opponents, she'd be facing a tougher race. They aren't dropping out because, as Richardson proved at the last debate, they know they are place holding and hope to be rewarded by a political position in her administration. They are pandering (which these days could be a synonym for politicking). I see Wesley Clark do it on any panel he's on and have read he's hoping for Vice President. Ugh!

So right now, it appears it'll be Hillary and Rudy next year and I am not happy. Neither will promise to get us out of Iraq, but at least Hillary doesn't tell the president that she prays every day that he will bomb Iran (as it is said Giuliani did). One does not claim they deserve the presidency because they will brutally cut a swathe across the Middle East-- not sure with what troops but then the daddy party doesn't care what troops. They just like the big talk.

And Hillary, well supposedly she's being picked on by the boys. She publicly says it's not her gender but lets her surrogates go out and claim just that-- or as Bill did, try to claim it's swift boating when someone reminds people she doesn't have firm positions on a lot of issues. Hillary wants it both ways, to run as the first woman but as soon as she is called to account for her positions, it's because they are picking on her as a woman. The gender card is being played if not by her, then her surrogates.

Let's be honest, as a second time senator, with no real record in leadership, Hillary is in the running because she is a woman and winning for now because of to whom she has hooked her star-- a star she is still riding. Her numbers went up as soon as the big dog got more involved. The problem is, for those who are supporting her as a way to get him back, who knows what she'll do if she holds the office of president. She could dump him. The character issue is a big concern for me where it comes to Hillary. She's doing what she has to do to win. What will she do once in there?

If nothing else, we should have learned with Bush that the power of the presidency isn't easily taken back. Something is moving in our country to get more and more of an imperial presidency. We need to be very cautious in our choices-- maybe more than ever before in our history-- except what are our choices? Double ugh