Posted on 01/20/2008 10:48:47 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
According to a recent Gallup poll, almost three out of four Americans are dissatisfied with how things are going in our country, with just 24 percent believing we're headed in the right direction. The deep discontent reflected in those numbers have made Democrats optimistic about their party's chances of electing one of their own to the White House in November.
However, the situation represents more than a mere opportunity; it imposes an obligation on the Democratic Party to offer the country a candidate who can inspire the American people, a candidate capable of addressing the many critical challenges, foreign and domestic, that will confront our next president and commander in chief.
At times of crisis, this country has always been blessed with strong, even visionary, leadership. But that has not been true for the last seven years. To the contrary, on almost every front we are suffering the consequences of slapdash, divisive leadership.
Economically, the country appears to be sliding into a recession; internationally, our reputation on the world stage has perhaps never been lower. Militarily, our men and women in uniform have been burdened with responsibilities that they lack the manpower to carry out over the long term, and with the aging of the Baby Boom generation and a soaring national debt, our financial obligations likewise threaten to overwhelm the resources we have committed to meet them.
In Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama, the Democrats offer Georgia voters three candidates with the experience, leadership and character to begin to turn this country around. However, only two of those candidates now harbor realistic hopes for the nomination.
Edwards, a former senator from neighboring North Carolina, has used his campaign to voice the growing anxiety and fear of many in America's working and middle classes. It's an important message, as recent days have confirmed, and with economic troubles ahead, the issues that Edwards has highlighted could prove central in determining the outcome of the general election.
However, judging from the reaction of primary voters, Edwards' impassioned, crusading style may be better suited to a House or Senate race than a race for the presidency. He remains a distant third in most polls, and his hopes for the nomination no longer seem realistic.
That leaves Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. On questions of policy, not much separates the two. Their approaches toward health care, tax policy, foreign relations and the suppression of Islamic terrorism vary only at the margins.
(In fact, that similarity probably accounts for the dismaying pettiness of the disputes between the Obama and Clinton camps in recent days. Campaigns have to argue, and with little of real import separating them, they are now arguing over the little things and in some cases the imaginary things.)
The question, then, is which of the two candidates would be more able to implement the policies they agree upon.
Throughout the campaign, Clinton has argued that she has the better grasp of official Washington, which is probably true. Through hard work and intelligence, she has built an admirable record of success as a senator that has impressed even some Republican colleagues.
Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well — official Washington also has a better grasp on Clinton.
Perhaps burned by her experience in her husband's administration, she has too often chosen to play within the Washington system rather than dare to challenge its assumptions. And that's not the kind of leadership needed at the moment.
The prime example of that instinct was probably Clinton's vote last year in favor of naming Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. While that stance kept her in good standing in certain Washington circles, it also fed what at the time was a rising push toward military confrontation with Iran that was unnecessary and dangerous. Even voters willing to set aside Clinton's earlier vote giving President Bush authority to invade Iraq were taken aback when she seemed to have repeated that mistake.
For reasons largely outside her control, Clinton is also one of the more reviled figures in American politics. That sentiment is unfair and irrational, and she has done little to deserve it. But it exists nonetheless, and it would limit the amount of public support she would be able to rally as president.
Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated an appeal across many of the lines that have divided America. That is a critically important attribute, because the scale of changes that must be made to correct America's course cannot be accomplished with majorities of 50 percent plus one.
Different moments in history require different types of leaders, and part of the art of picking a president is matching the person to the challenge and to the time. So while both Clinton and Obama would make very good presidents, Obama is the person; this is his time.
“The usual Bush-bashing Dem drivel “
Bush DESERVES to be bashed - he’s been a huge disappointment and, as a conservative, a total failure.
That said, did anyone expect the Atlantis Urinal-Constipation to back anyone but a rat?
When I see such polls, I wonder how many of the respondents actually have a clue how things are going in our country. My guess is not so many.
Too bad the Democrat machine will NEVER allow Obama to win, eh?
Already allegations are surfacing of MASSIVE Voter Fraud and Voter intimidations in the Nevada Caucus’s by Hillary’s minions.
Too many DC Mansion payments are depending on her to run, and RACISM, INC is out of a job if Obama gets the nod...
This is their endorsement for the Democratic primary in Georgia. Next week they will give their Republican endorsement.
bush bash...but for different reasons
“This is their endorsement for the Democratic primary in Georgia. Next week they will give their Republican endorsement.”
In which they will endorse another rat. ;)
Highest level of experience is a one and a third term senator who may or may not still sleep with a former president elected by the smallest numbers in recent history. Next we have a one term former senator who, like his former running mate, rarely bothered to show up for work. Finally, we have a less than one term senator who used to be a state representative.
If this is what the AJC considers 'experienced' then we must assume that the present editor there passed sixth grade English before dropping out of school and deciding to be the editor of one of the larger newspapers in America. Since this actually isn't the case, the AJC is openly lying and not taking on the newspaper's role of being an objective observer. The newspaper should have lambasted the Democrats for offering such slim pickings.
“three out of four Americans are dissatisfied with how thing are going in this country”
Does that mean three out of four Americans now believe that we should be taken care of from cradle to grave by the government? That would be the only possible explanation for such an outcome unless it was a push poll(and I know that would never happen)/s
The Atlanta Urinal & Constipation comes out for the black candidate?
I’m shocked!
I suspect that Democrat women will hand enough states to Hilliary so that she will secure the nomination regardless of what the PunditocRATcy says.
Yeah, I just hated his Supreme Court appointments that upheld the ban on intact dilation partial birth abortion, I hated him lowering the entire federal income tax rate where I keep $4K per year of my salary, I hated him overthrowing the Taliban and the Hussein regime, I hate the fact that federal revenue rose from $1.7 trillion to $2.5 trillion due to the tax cuts, and I just hated how he pulled this nation out of a major recession.
Where do they get you bozos from?
.
Does anyone still read the AJC? It is as much a shill for the DNC as the NYT.
“Yeah, I just hated his Supreme Court appointments that upheld the ban on intact dilation partial birth abortion”
I hated how his DOJ just filed on behalf of Washington, DC and their gun ban for the upcoming USSC case.
We’ll see how his appointees do.
Thank god us “bashers” made him drop that harebrained Miers.
“I hated him lowering the entire federal income tax rate where I keep $4K per year of my salary, “
I hate that it’s temporary and will jump back up soon. Enjoy it while it lasts.
I hate how he grew government spending faster than Clinton - borrowing billions from the Chicoms to fund his big government entitlement programs.
“I hated him overthrowing the Taliban and the Hussein regime,”
I hate that he went back on his campaign promise - no nation building.
“I hate the fact that federal revenue rose from $1.7 trillion to $2.5 trillion due to the tax cuts”
I hate that they spent all that, and more!
“and I just hated how he pulled this nation out of a major recession.”
I hate his fiscal policies that are about to throw us into another one. Fire up the printing presses and send everyone a check! what a buffoon.
:-)
I don’t care who anybody votes for as long as it isn’t the Clintons. They pandered to the Hispanic vote by claiming that no woman is illegal. Let’s show the Clintons we know the difference between illegal and legal. BOYCOTT CASINOS and HOTELS IN LAS VEGAS and RENO. TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT OF THE BANK OF AMERICA, before you BUY find out if a company has stringent guidelines for ensuring that they are not hiring illegal immigrants. The surge in illegal immigration started the year Bill Clinton took the White House in 1992 and has continued unchecked ever since. Send your children to private or charter schools or better yet to virtual public schools.
“Fire up the printing presses and send everyone a check!”
The real question here is, if they did do that, would you cash the check?
“I don’t care who anybody votes for as long as it isn’t the Clintons.”
The frontrunners in the GOP primary are a hairs distance from the Clintons.
Will you vote for McCain and kyoto, tax increases, more campaign finance reform, and amnesty?
Huckabee the populist?
Flipp Mittens and his socialized medicine in all but name?
All of them and their big government solutions?
Well, if you ‘hate’ what Bush did that much, you’ll probably have to invent a new more extreme noun than ‘hate’ to let others know how much you’ll despise the tax raising anti-American society-destroying policies of a ‘Rat president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.