Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > October > 31
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Bush or Ahmadinejad: Who’s worse?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The endless string of presidential candidate Q&A sessions, I’ve believed from the start, offers the nation a clear sense of the differences between the two parties. Commentators and much of the Democratic field conclude before the first ballot is cast that Hillary has her party’s nomination in the bag — so last night’s performance was an occasion to gang up on her.
Most of the first hour was devoted to Iran and how a Democrat in the White House would deal with its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The simple answer is that they’d all be smarter at negotiating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than the Republicans are or could be. Dennis Kucinich would even talk him out of nuclear power.
Most striking about their responses, however, is that this field of prominent Americans, all of whom are asking the nation’s voters to entrust them with our lives and fortunes, fear and loath George W. Bush more than Ahmadinejad or the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. When asked to take a pledge that Iran would not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons on their watch, the field weaseled. Joe Biden would pledge to keep us safe. Chris Dodd would pledge to “do everything we can.” Bill Richardson pledged to stop them through diplomacy. Kucinich would talk them out of both weapons and nuclear energy. Hillary pledged to “do everything I can.” John Edwards would take all “responsible” steps. Barack Obama? My notes don’t reflect that he said anything.
With the possible exception of Hillary, these are not people you want in the White House in a time of war. That’s especially true of John Edwards. Watching him take on Hillary reveals a trial lawyer with a style that brought him riches in the courtroom but would be a disaster in the White House. Edwards has the ability — or so he projects — to suddenly believe that his adversary, whether a big corporation or a political rival, is the embodiment of evil. He then twists words and actions to reflect his reality. He’d be a seriously dangerous man in the White House, especially leading a nation at war.
Kucinich is an “impeach Bush” wacko who serves as a reminder of how far left his party reaches. Obama has never seemed presidential and still doesn’t. In a decade or two,maybe. Right now he’s at home in the Senate as a junior Joe Biden. It’s easy to imagine him, too, as president of a national or international non-profit. Biden should be in the classroom or in one of the foreign-policy think-tanks where he can preach — and explode on que. Richardson is running to be Hillary’s vice president and, compared to the field, seems relatively harmless.
Dodd is part of the wallpaper. He did make a relevant point, however, and it is that Republicans would prefer to run against Hillary because of her high negatives. Few would actually choose to listen to her voice for four years. And, of course, it’s hard to know what she’d do in the White House, since she comes from that hide-the-ball bloc of liberals who think the electorate wouldn’t choose them if they knew what they’d actually do in office. Social Security is an example. She’d tax the rich to benefit the deserving.
In the first round of joint appearances by the candidates, Hillary came across as the only one tough enough among the Democrats to lead a nation at war. She has her flaws but in this lot I’d certainly prefer having her, rather than Obama, Biden, Edwards or Kucinich, across the negotiating table from Ahmadinejad.
