My candidate preference order has always been Edwards, Obama, Clinton, with a particular antipathy toward Senator Clinton. I really have never liked her much. I suppose it's because she's a woman, and as such, she reminds me of other women.
I realize this is not completely her fault, and she may not be making me feel this way on purpose.
And on some level, it might even be unfair to blame her for an accident of birth. It's nobody's fault.
We have to accept the world the way it is and the way it looks right now is that I'm going to have to choose between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama fairly soon.
A plausible scenario for a John Edwards nomination is starting to slip away. The only thing that can save it is a victory in Nevada or South Carolina, maybe even both. I'm not optimistic.
The time will soon come for me to make a hard choice, regardless of what the bitter-enders say. And there will be plenty of them. That time is not yet come, but it is knocking on the door.
After Nevada, if John doesn't win, and the polls don't change in South Carolina, the time for me to choose between Clinton and Obama will have arrived. And Obama is making that choice a lot tougher lately.
So where are the contrasts? How do I make this choice?
Who supported the war early on and who didn't seems to be the big difference, but I personally find it trivial.
It was obvious that Clinton, Edwards, and Kerry all supported the war under the mistaken conventional wisdom that opposing it would have ended their Presidential aspirations.
They all failed that moral test. They all knew it was stupid and they all voted for it anyway because they wanted to preserve their Presidential viability.
It's sickening, but that's what politicians do. None of them have humiliated themselves as badly as McCain.
But not Obama. He spoke against the war, and that's his main claim to fame right now. Superior judgement? Greater political courage? Sorry, but I don't think so.
The difference is simply this - Obama DIDN'T KNOW he was going to run for President at the time. He was free to speak his mind.
Once he did know he was running, he buckled down and voted to keep the blood and money pouring down the drain just like all the others. The issue is a wash for me.
Now that it's safe, and the public is against the war, everyone will be looking for a way out, except the Republicans.
So where is the contrast? How to choose? I'd rather watch Obama than Clinton speak, that's one point. Also I'm against dynasties on principal.
So the choice should be easy. But I'm having second thoughts.
What gives me pause is the view of the Presidency the candidates articulated in the Las Vegas debate. I'm not sure I agree with Obama on his fundamental view of what the job of the President is.
His remark about his aversion to papers, I have to admit, sounded an alarm bell for me. It sounded familiar, too familiar.
It was Reaganesque, and not in a good way, even if there was such a thing as Reaganesque in a good way, which I doubt.
I think the details of policy, personnel, and management of the bureaucracy really DOES matter.
In the environment of the Presidential bubble it's very easy to become captive to one faction or another. Presidents get played by those who control access.
It's like trying to make friends after you become famous. You'd think it would be easier, but it's harder. A lot harder.
Access to the President is so filtered that it's critical for a President to be able to understand which details are telling and which are red herrings.
You can't just rely on 'your people'. Or even the best and brightest people. Because they're not elected.
That's why it was Eisenhower who saw most clearly the dangers of the military industrial complex - he knew the details, how the military worked.
Since then, most Presidents have been rolled by the military. They can't see through the bullshit.
Obama and Clinton differ little on the issue, but we have here two very different views of the Presidency - one of the biggest points of contrast between them.
Both these approaches have succeeded at different times, and both failed, depending on the President.
Obama seems to take the big picture approach - JFK, Bush, or Reagan. It can be a disaster - see Bush. Or a success, see JFK.
Clinton takes the wonkish approach - LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton 1. It also has pitfalls - see Carter, Nixon.
So there is a contrast between the two candidates, and this is one thing I will put in Clinton's favor, personally.
Against that, however, I must weigh the truly odious people that surround her and who will control the Democratic Party should she head it up. And the agony of listening to her droning for the next few years, not to mention the insufferable smirks on the faces of my many ex-wives and other females after she wins.
That may be cancelled out by the rage and frustration of the right wing blowhardosphere, on the other hand, no small thing.
But then there is the possible effect she'll have on the down ticket races, especially after she starts triangulating against them. And of course the first 4 years will basically be a campaign for the second term.
Well, like I said, it's a hard choice, but it's coming, and right soon.
Unless a miracle happens in Nevada and South Carolina, and I don't believe in miracles.
