Democratic Prez Endorsement--Pt 1

I want to begin this discussion by singing the praises of someone whom I will not be endorsing for the nomination anytime soon: Hillary Clinton.


It is not faint praise when I say sincerely that she has the potential of having the best administration of my lifetime, so that we can envision going from the worst to the best in one step.


I do not blame her for some obfuscation on selected wedge issues, unlike some of her chief opponents for the nomination with her party, whose motives are obvious. I do not believe that her problem is an absence of clearly-announced positions; it is that she does not want to be boxed in, and that is appropriate given her present role as the focus of all attention (in either party). It is smart for her to do so, and generally, she's just plain smart. Well-disciplined, too (her husband's downfall). So, there is much to hope for with her, and I will readily settle if that is what it comes to.


Still, I can hope for better. I am persuaded by the War of the Roses argument that the national tickets of the last two-plus decades have shown a surfeit of Bushes and Clintons. We do not need another chapter (or two, when Jeb runs against her in 2012). Doing the Bill Clinton Administration without the sexual hijinks would've been great in 2000-2008, but we need to look toward the future.

It is a bit unfair to suggest Hillary doesn't look to the future, but it is not unfair to suggest her appeal is largely based on a desire to re-run the last decade or so--with edits.

John Edwards has now proved that he is the Democratic opponent with the best chops at getting Hillary. He's well informed, polite, but tough on her. The fact that he's the best at taking her down, though, does not constitute grounds for an endorsement. Barack Obama's strategy would seem to be a better one for getting elected: let Edwards bring her down to size, then he can take them both on without getting his reputation dirty.