Because We Need The Eggs

Unfortunately the political evolutionary process triumphed by thinning the herd of Democratic Party presidential contenders before the primaries arrived to the great state of New York. Experienced and principled candidates such as Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich, and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards were forced to drop out of contention due to lack of support, but more importantly lack of campaign funds. Not only were these candidates the victim of a political form of evolution, but also by the “invisible hand” of the free market. Money, or lack thereof, talked. Free speech indeed.

Defying early expectations, there are now two Democratic candidates left competing for the Democratic nomination – one more candidate than the Clintons were expecting - New York Senator, by way of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the precocious, charismatic Senator from Illinois. It is interesting to note that of the original Democratic field of candidates, the two remaining Democratic candidates have the least experience in terms of elected public service.

Senator Hillary Clinton presents herself to the voting public as the Democratic candidate with 35 years experience, and with the general election campaign experience necessary to defeat the influential, vast and vaunted Republican Party attack machine. Senator Hillary Clinton argues she is the best candidate who will be ready to lead the country effective the expiration date of the Bush Administration, and is best qualified to solve the myriad of problems facing the United States.

Senator Barack Obama positions himself as an agent of change, a generational candidate who will be able to move beyond the divisive political battles of the past, and who is best able to unite the country.

A vote should matter. In a perfect world, a vote should say something more than I’m voting for the person most likely to win, or the guy I would like to have a beer with. I intended to vote for Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic Party nomination because of his consistent opposition to the Iraq War, and his advocacy for a single payer health care system in the United States. Voting for Kucinich declares I am against the war in Iraq; I am against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war; and affirm it is time to implement universal health coverage in the United States because medical coverage should not be based on a free market, capitalistic ideal. The mainstream media refused to allow Congressman Kucinich to participate in televised debates. Sadly, he was forced to drop out of the race soon after.

Issues are supposed to matter in a political campaign. Unfortunately the mainstream media depicts the Republican and Democratic campaigns as glorified beauty pageants. The candidates are debutantes. Debates become an opportunity for the candidates to demonstrate their ability to recite campaign slogans, sound bites, and applause lines by rote. Debates become entertaining only when the candidates verbally spit on each other. Furthermore, debates are not structured to elicit substantial discourse. Instead, debates included “lightning rounds” in which the candidates had to answer useless, inane questions in 30 seconds or less. The only things missing from the political debates are the sashes to identify the home state of the contestants, door prizes for the losers, a crown for the winner, and the late great Bert Parks serenading the winner – “There he is, Mr. President.”

In a cynical world, issues don’t matter in a political campaign because, once elected, presidents are rarely able to keep their campaign promises. The campaign speeches sound pretty and are intended to galvanize support, but campaign promises are rarely implemented after the contest has ended.

Ronald Reagan campaigned on the platform of reducing the size of government, overturning Roe v Wade, implementing prayer in school, and reducing taxes. In his State of the Union addresses, Reagan frequently asked for line item veto power to eliminate wasteful government spending, but he was denied the executive budgetary privilege. Of his stated goals, President Reagan was only able to cut taxes.

In the 2000 presidential campaign, Governor Bush disparaged President Clinton’s foreign policy regarding military interventions promising he would not engage in nation building. In his second inaugural address, President Bush presented a bold foreign policy agenda, to introduce democracy to countries currently ruled by tyrants. The President, acting more like Chairman Mao, wants to democratize the Middle East through the barrel of a gun.

In the absence of real political debate, voters should focus on individual qualities, intangible character traits that may give a hint into the thinking process of the candidates. To quote the great actor Al Pacino from the movie The Devil’s Advocate, “Pressure. Some people, you squeeze them, they focus. Others fold. Can you summon your talent at will? Can you deliver on a deadline? Can you sleep at night?”

Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, thoughtful, caring, hard working Senator who would make a first-rate, able president. She possesses admirable qualities that could translate into a successful presidency. However, during the presidential campaign, she exhibited some apprehensive characteristics.

Early in her political career, Senator Clinton positioned herself as a hawk regarding national security issues. During the campaign, Senator Clinton wanted to reassure voters she could be an effective Commander in Chief. In past presidential campaigns, Democratic candidates were portrayed as soft.

Senator Clinton initially supported the worst foreign policy decision since the last contrived war in Vietnam. She voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Saddam Hussein despite sufficient evidence indicating the Iraqi dictator did not possess weapons of mass destruction. First mistake. Her second mistake was not reading the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Instead, Senator Clinton admitted she was briefed on the contents of the NIE. However, the NIE contained admonitions regarding the intelligence that was gathered. Not reading the NIE is contrary to being the hands on, detail oriented, policy wonk she claims to be.

Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence the Bush Administration manipulated the intelligence indicating Iraq was attempting to obtain aluminum tubes necessary for centrifuges; Iraq was attempting to obtain yellow cake uranium from Niger; and Iraq was somehow connected to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. In fact, the Center for Public Integrity created a database of statements made by the Bush Administration regarding the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and concluded President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and others made 935 false statements. Senator Clinton accepted the dubious evidence presented by the Bush Administration, and ignored the factual evidence indicating Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

Senator Clinton has refused to admit she made a mistake in authorizing President Bush’s inevitable march towards war against Iraq, contrary to Senator John Kerry in 2004 presidential campaign and former Senator John Edwards in 2008. The reasons may be tactical. Senator Kerry was unable to clearly express his position regarding the Iraq War in the 2004 presidential election. The Republicans argued Senator Kerry was a flip flopper. Presidential candidate Clinton assumed she would be the Democratic nominee. She did not want to give any ammunition to her numerous detractors in the Republican Party. Presidential ambition may have affected her judgment.

Michigan Senator Carl Levin proposed an amendment to the Iraq war resolution to purposely slow down the Bush Administration’s progression towards war with Iraq. The intention of the amendment was to have the United Nations pass a resolution “explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs… Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed.”[i]

Senator Clinton voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq, but voted against the Levin Amendment. She argues that voting for the Levin Amendment would have ceded military control to the United Nations Security Council. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton distorted the actual meaning of the Levin Amendment.

In 2007, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl – Lieberman Amendment, a non-binding resolution suggesting how the United States should approach its military strategies in Iraq because it “will have critical long term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security in the region.”[ii] In addition, the amendment called for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton’s vote for this resolution was a mistake. The Bush Administration has demonstrated they are predisposed to launching preemptive attacks against its enemies, real or imagined. The Kyl – Lieberman amendment created an opportunity for the Bush Administration to start another war in the Middle East.

The Republican nomination is settled. Senator McCain is the presumptive candidate. He argued in favor of the surge in Iraq. He stated the United States would maintain a military presence in Iraq for 100 years – granted 100 years is an exaggeration by the maverick Senator from Arizona, but the Iraq War will cease being an issue in the presidential campaign if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Party nominee. Clinton may be reluctant to introduce the Iraq War in the campaign because she voted for the resolution. She may avoid reminding the Democratic Party base of her original position regarding the war. Senator Obama is better positioned to debate the war in Iraq against Senator McCain because the young Senator from Illinois did not support the war and will campaign to end it.

Political tradition dictates the presidential campaign begin with the Iowa Caucuses, and the New Hampshire primary. Presidential campaigns usually end quickly, thus making the other states practically irrelevant in the process. Michigan and Florida broke with tradition, and scheduled their primaries before Iowa and New Hampshire without consent from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The calendar had to be rearranged. As punishment, Michigan and Florida lost their delegates. The Democratic candidates agreed in advance not to campaign in the delinquent states.

Senator Clinton needed to change the news cycle in her favor after losing the South Carolina primary. She needed a victory before the Super Tuesday primaries. The Senator from New York made a personal appearance in Florida to thank the voters for her victory. She promised to work towards getting the Florida delegates seated at the convention. Clinton reneged on her word.

Finally, there is a question that has not been asked during the Democratic campaign for the nomination, but will be asked before the general election in November. Can Hillary Clinton unite the country? The question is galling considering the Republican Party instigated the divisiveness in 1994. Senator Clinton is the dream candidate of the Republican Party. The Republicans will conjure the ghosts of presidents past, and relive the horror of the Clinton presidency – a horror the Republicans initiated and perpetuated, mostly as a fund raising tool. Democrats have an opportunity for a landslide election in 2008 after the disastrous presidency of George Bush. Is Hillary Clinton capable of taking advantage of voter dissatisfaction and deliver a landslide victory?

Senator Clinton voted for an unnecessary war. She failed to counter the weak arguments made by the Bush Administration regarding Iraq’s involvement in the September 11th attacks, and Saddam Hussein’s alleged threat to national security. The Senator misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching a war with Iraq. She reneged on her word to punish Florida for violating party rules. If elected president, she will be unable to unite the country. Senator Clinton has demonstrated she cannot be trusted.

Senator Obama carries some baggage as well. First, he is inexperienced, especially in foreign policy matters, having served only two years in the Senate.

Early in his term, President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. The charismatic Kennedy under whelmed the communist leader. Believing he had an advantage over the youthful president, Khrushchev implemented the policy of installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, which led to the tense standoff known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will an adversary underestimate a youthful President Obama?

Second, in interviews with the press, Senator Obama admitted that he delegates responsibilities to subordinates. We had two recent presidents who delegated responsibilities to their subordinates – President Reagan and current President Bush. You can argue that President Reagan’s detachment led to the Iran Contra scandal in which weapons were traded for hostages, and funds from the sale of the weapons were diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras. Reagan was not aware his subordinates were trading weapons for hostages.

Republican nominee George Bush entrusted the search for vice president to Dick Cheney. Cheney repeatedly stated he was not interested in becoming vice president, but after an exhaustive search, Cheney selected himself as George Bush’s running mate. Once elected by the Supreme Court, Vice President Cheney inserted many of his Neo-Con cronies throughout the Bush Administration.

Furthermore, in August 6, 2001 President Bush was given a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US.” President Bush has admitted that he does not like to read. He probably pawned off the PDB on his subordinates. Whoever read the PDB either was too dense to understand the report, or decided it was not important enough to interrupt President Bush’s vacation in Crawford, Texas. Ultimately, the Bush Administration did not act on the PDB, we were attacked on September 11, and a year later President Bush initiated the campaign to preemptively launch a war against Iraq.

It is a big leap to imply an Obama Administration will resemble the Reagan and Bush administrations, but detached presidents usually encounter problems. Sometimes staff becomes overzealous. Staff may commit to a course of action without presidential authority. Also, Senator Obama will be overly dependent on his staff just as President Bush is dependent on Vice President Cheney’s Neo Con cronies.

Furthermore, Senator Obama argues he will be able to unite Democrats and Republicans, sounding eerily like Governor Bush’s promise of being a “uniter, not a divider.” Obama argues he was able to work with Republicans in the Illinois State Legislature, a similar boast made by Governor George Bush who claimed he was able to work with Democrats in the Texas State Legislature. Senator Obama is placing a lot of faith in an opposition party that specializes in exploiting differences, has not demonstrated an ability to work with Democrats in the past, and may oppose, sabotage, and disingenuously misrepresent his policies in the future.

Senator Obama’s campaign is based on the promise of hope. However, after eight years of divisiveness, fear mongering, and political stalemate, it is possible Senator Obama may be able to usher in a new thought process into American political life.

In a recent Op Ed column, Bob Herbert describes the natural forces at work in the Democratic campaign, realists versus the dreamers. Realists believe there are enough whites that will absolutely not vote an African American candidate. Realists argue Senator Obama does not have enough political experience to be president. Realists worry about losing the general election because another laissez faire Republican president may cause irreparable damage to the country.[iii] Realists argue Senator Clinton is the better candidate. She is more “electable” than Senator Obama. Realists, like former President Clinton, argue dreamers would be rolling the dice on a President Obama because he is an untested candidate. Obama supporters should not base their votes on the potential greatness of Obama instead of the actual, proven, capable qualities of Hillary Clinton. President Clinton argues Hillary Clinton has the skills to be a great president. And he swears he is not just saying that because the Senator is his wife.

The dreamers argue Senator Obama is new to the process, therefore not corrupted by it, he personifies hope, he is a political prodigy who will unite the country, inspire enough new voters to offset those who would refuse to vote for him because he is black, and demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States has moved beyond race based politics.

Woody Allen concluded the iconic movie “Annie Hall” with an old joke as a metaphor describing the irrationality of love. It can also apply to the illogicality of the 2008 presidential campaign.

A man walks into a psychiatrist’s office. He says, “Doctor, doctor, my brother thinks he is a chicken!!!” The doctor says, “That’s terrible. You should have him committed.” The man says, “I can’t.” The doctor asks, “Why not?” The man answers, “Because I need the eggs.”

Why did I vote for a candidate who speaks eloquently, but vaguely of change, a candidate who promises hope instead of concrete policy proposals, someone who is unwilling to “lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues,”[iv] someone with no foreign policy experience.

Because we need the eggs.


[i] John Broder, “Clinton And The Iraq War Amendment,” New York Times, February 2, 2008.
[ii] Jim Ruttenberg and Michael Cooper, “Rivals Challenge Clinton On Her Vote for Iran Measure,” New York Times, October 31, 2007.
[iii] Bob Herbert, “Winds Of Change,” New York Times, February 5, 2008.
[iv] “Obama’s Promise,” The Nation, page 2, February 25, 2008.