So, here we are. One month into 2008 and where does that leave us? Well, I'm as confused as the next guy. We are 10 months away from deciding between the lesser of four evils for one. The choices we are presented with for President leave me with a very sick feeling.
On the Democrat's side, the choosing between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is like choosing to move to Siberia or Mongolia - either way, it's cold, dark and surrounded by communists. For the Republican's, you have John McCain on one hand and Mitt Romney on the other. While Romney says he's more conservative than he has been as a governor, it's hard to see any evidence of fact. McCain is so conservative that he was rumored to be John Kerry's running mate, for goodness sakes!
I suppose m choice will inevitablybe decided when the primaries end. I can not see myself supporting Obama, although I personally like him. But in truth, his platform of "change and healing" only works if you are willing to change your own beliefs for his. It seems brutally clear to me that every time talks about "a change we can believe in" (which is mentioned in bold on his website), he's advocating that everyone should move to the Left, which is where he solidly is.
It takes a certain amount of arrogance to claim to be a unifyer if you are unwilling to compromise, don't you think?
As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, in reality I dislike her less than I used to. I certainly do not want to see her as commander-in-chief, but I tend to believe she would not be as bad a President than Obama might. Hillary is exactly what we have all come to know her as. She is calculated, deceitful and devisive.
On top of all that, she has Bill. To better illustrate her husband, let me refer to the great Charles Krauthammer:
Clinton is a narcissist but also smart and analytic enough to distinguish adulation from achievement. Among Democrats, he is popular for twice giving them the White House, something no Democrat had done since FDR. And the bouquets he receives abroad are simply signs of the respect routinely given ex-presidents, though Clinton earns an extra dollop of fawning, with the accompanying fringe benefits, because he is (a) charming and (b) not George W. Bush.
But Clinton knows this is all written on sand. It is the stuff of celebrity. What gnaws at him is the verdict of history. What clearly enraged him more than anything this primary season was Barack Obama's statement that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that . . . Bill Clinton did not."
Krauthammer suggests that Bill is simply doing everything he can to get his wife elected for his own selfish reasons, and not for what's best for the country. Therefore, he has little to lose and it explains his numerous outbursts and faux pas - including his now-famous race-baiting comments in Suth Carolina, where he compared Obama's victory there to the meaningless victory of Jesse Jackson in 1988.
So where does that leave us Reagan-ites? McCain is riding the momentum, but Romney not down for the count. I suppose Romney may yet prove to be my guy, but whether he or McCain win the nomination, they must remember their conservative base when choosing a number two. Otherwise, many conservatives will end up with the lesser of all evils.