WHO SHOULD BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT?

Shaping the Primary Decision


Ever since Big Al made it clear—or as clear as he was going to make it under the circumstances—that he was not going to commit to a 2008 race for the White House, I did two things: I became impossible to live with, which I was anyway, and I got out my Sherlock hat and my antique magnifying glass to find the best candidate..

I was going to check out my choices with a fine tooth comb.

But it was not going to be easy since no one made me tingle or throw myself on the ground in reverence, it was clear I had to find the candidate who best matched what I had in my heart and, two, was a good bet overall to come in strong in the early primaries.

Not an easy task!

And I’m not sure why: Do we have a surfeit of great talent? Or does each one come up short?

Something I’ve been pondering since this whole popularity contest began.

To satisfy the second part of my criteria, I had to say good=bye, Joe Biden, Governor Richardson, Senator Dodd, Congressman Kucinich—worthy candidates all; but you don’t have a Chinaman’s chance considering your lack of movement in the latest polls….

So, then what?

The trouble was that I was not thrilled about anyone…proving that I either set my standard too high or I was just being a collective pain in the backside.

Nonetheless, I kept bouncing back and forth among candidates reading everything I could devour and changing horses almost every day, yet backing neither.….

One caveat: I didn’t want to be stirred by non-objective blather; there was enough of that already.

First of, I decided that I was not going to vote on an inexperienced candidate no matter how personally uplifting, charming and cleaver, whose principal experience did not rise above saying “present” at over one hundred roll call votes.

Therefore, I was left with the choice of Hillary or Edwards.

Neither was a clear choice for me.

Sadly, no matter what Hillary claims, there is little evidence in her questionable recall on matters that she has a history of coalition building or bills that show Hillary’s name as co-sponser; that’s after seven years. So goodbye to that argument; it’s just not convincing.

And it seems to me, to effectuate the kind of change that I feel is necessary, I want someone who represents me who is less the “glad-hander” and more the fighter.

And there are questions—perhaps more questions than I have of any other candidate.
That’s because Hillary has not satisfied me about where she stands on Foreign Trade, Fast Track, NAFTA, Corporatism, jobs, Immigration, Green Cards or the ubiquitous lobbyists. Is she for them or against them?. And what does she propose doing about them?

To the devoted fan, I say, “yes,” she has addressed these questions but there is a difference between addressing these questions and answering them satisfactorily.

Nor has Hillary convinced me of her insight or perspicacity when she obliged Bush a second time and supported a nonbinding resolution to target the Iranian Imperial Guard—a first step towards armed intervention in the affairs of another country. Didn’t we already learn that lesson?

As a result, she is either being too zealous, too eager to conform, or naïve and capable of being manipulated or simply duplicitous by not leveling with us. Either way, she has conjured up massive question marks.

Jumping over to Edwards, there are lots of things I don’t like about Edwards, too. And I’m willing to admit that it comes from observing his performance during the 2003 visits to New Hampshire. I found him to be to be over-eager—too anxious to be whatever you wanted him to be; kind of Romneyesque.

He seemed, at the time, like the rich kid who never had to worry about carrying his weight.

Not true, I learned.


What was true, however, was that Mr. Edwards was the perennial light weight on the issues.

In all fairness, the Edwards of today bears little outward resemblance to the Edwards of 2003.

He has boned up. And he is serious now.

Although I admit that I still don’t know whether he is my “populist” fronting a savvy opportunist.

What does impress me though is that he doesn’t need the money. And, two, he is now painting on a broader canvas showing a growing degree of understanding of the needs of the people and the country. .

And in many respects, he has achieved a level of gravitas missing from his 2003 clone.

I am pleased, however, about one thing: He is a fighter. His background shows that.

But, on the other hand, I am worried that he seems a loner; not a coalition builder.

But all things considered, he is the only leading candidate who is focusing on the middle class, which to me far outshines any other issue because we all know that whatever happens, we will be leaving Iraq.

There’s another factor: And that is that in my estimation, and after looking at the polls, that I suspect that he is the only democratic candidate who can win not only in the north but the south as well.

I see in Edwards an opportunity to win after eight years of renegade policies, “with us or against us” diatribes, lies, smoke and mirrors and the most corrupt practices ever foisted on the American people. All of this is an anathema to good government and democracy.

And I want someone up there with my imprimatur who can EAT THEM ALIVE!!!

Therefore, I am willing to bet the store on John Edwards and I will cast my vote for John Edwards for president.

Les Aaron\
The Committee for Positive Change.