spousal matchup

Today I enjoyed watching speeches by the democratic presidential spouses. To make a long story short, I think Mrs. Obama is a skilled orator. She is self possessed, she has good cadence and she knows English much better than the current Prez, even though he is married to the first librarian. But putting her up against old Billy is like putting me in sumo ring with the current Yokozuna.

For that reason I think it would be fair to establish a handicap for presidential spouses. Similar to golf, where a player’s handicap allows all players with different skill levels to play against each other competitively this would level the playing field in the spousal matchup of 2008.

With that in mind I propose Bill Clinton, who after all is used to addressing the nation and the United Nations, to be categorized as a handicap -2. Which on the Illetschko-Volo Electoral Spousal Scale means that he may not use the letter L. This should put him on equal footing with Michelle Obama, who may use all vowels and consonants indiscriminately. So when she rhetorically asks the crowd “Why am I leaving my kids at home running around with my husband, running for president?” Billy Goat may only respond by saying “Goba cimate change is neary as bad as No Chid eft Behind”. With the successful adoption of this scale you can look forward to Mr. Clinton introducing his wife with “I woud ike to introduce my wife, Hiary…uhm. My wife Senator Cint… this is just not fair! My wife, the junior senator from New York.” It should add much needed levity to this year's presidental contest.

In other news, Bi Cinton compained heaviy about the imiatations of the ietschko-Voo Eectora Spousa Scae as impemented in this very bog. He obviously thinks it is a “Repubican Conspiracy”.

Why I don’t want the First Lady in the White House

Nothing and I mean nothing would be better than having a Woman President. Except maybe a black man. First of all let me state, that I belong to the majority that thinks the Republicans should just save their money and not bother running in 2008. I am convinced that every sane person who is eligible to vote in 2008, and those two are not mutually assured, knows what is good for them at this point.

The choice of Democratic candidates is large (I wrote this a while ago). I realize that most people and pundits are thinking how silly it is to start campaigning so early. What they, and Al Gore, do not seem to understand is that the Presidential Election 2008 are like the NBA Playoffs last year. They will be decided in the early rounds. The final will be a formality. Which only shows that it’s OK not to vote for an Oscar winner (I wrote this a long while before the Nobel thingy happened, maybe that would cancel out the Oscar).

I write this article with the above premises in mind. A Democrat will win, and the choice is between a black man and a woman. I guess it would be too easy to just give us the choice between a black man and white man of comparable status, or a woman and a man of comparable stature. But instead it has to be a relatively inexperienced black man, and the nearly former wife of a former President. Anyone want to take bets that Mrs. Clinton was playing a long game when she stuck with her husband? We could discuss the merits of each candidate, for example various policy choices, their foreign affairs mettle, their stance on universal health insurance and global warming. But I don’t think that their differences in policy statements are huge. I think that they are equal in their skills at being politicians, although with strengths in different areas.

The choice comes down to an issue different from politics and policies. It comes down to adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America. That original founding statement of the country was conceptualized with one specific purpose. A later President succinctly said “…that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”. I take the most important meaning from the Constitutions and Mr. Lincoln’s speech to be that the self governance of the people in this country is inviolable. This was extraordinary at a time when the common mode of governance was the absolute monarchy, a hereditary system based on the belief that rulers of monarchies were chosen by a god, or at least proxies of that deity. This modus operandi became unacceptable in this young nation. Both the issue of hereditary and god-given right to rule were made obsolete with the first confident John Hancock on that parchment.

This to me is the crux of the choice between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Today seven years ago, Mr. Clinton was the President. I know I am stating the obvious, who could forget those good old days? But I do find it surprising that all those Democrats who were taking issue with the son of a former President being elected into the White House after only eight years of interlude, think nothing of accepting the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton without blinking an eye. What happened to the “sanctity of our democratic values”? What happened to the “raison d’etat” of this land? Suddenly lefties think nothing of putting together another political dynasty, when only recently they were so against it. What are we going to do next, elect the daughter? I hear she is quite smart. I find this dishonest and inconsistent. I also think it dangerous. Instead of nipping the acceptance for this form of hereditary rule in our political system in the bud, we would encourage it. We would extend our blessing from the left to the last example from the right. It would become common place for politicians with family ties to strive for the highest offices in the country. Are we not close enough to being led by a political and elitist caste as it is? With politicians groomed from an early age, going to the right schools, joining the right fraternities to making the correct career choices we are on our best way back to the bad old days. John Hancock would rotate in his well earned resting place.

I know that in these insecure times we long for something known, something that we think safe that carries minimal risk. Maybe that is the reason why absolute monarchies evolved in the first place and were successful for such a long time. But being afraid of the unknown may not enter this equation. This country has managed to peacefully transfer power from one reasonably independent individual to another for over three centuries and that process should remain intact. Then there is also the fact that most people who would vote for Mrs. Clinton would at least as much be voting her husband back into the White House. In fact, to most people this seems to be the good idea here. I wholeheartedly disagree. Not only is it unconstitutional for the spouse of the President to have undue influence, it also shows that we should not be voting for that candidate in the first place. If she was qualified on her own, we would not feel the need to bring her husband into the equation. It is sad to have to apply this logic to the first female candidate with a serious chance of success. But integrity and the law of this land, given to us by one of the nicer documents in the history of humankind, demand it.

Because of this I choose the greater of two goods. Not only would we preserve our democratic institution but we would also send a clear signal to every citizen of the United States of America and to the rest of the world. That this country elects colorblind and without prejudice in regards to sex and origin of the candidate. There is no higher proof that this country is truly governed of the people, by the people and for the people, and that this bastion of universal equality shall never perish. What better way to claim leadership of the free nations of the world in these globally insecure days could there be?

(I must have just watched some patriotic movie when I wrote this, or something)

fast ohne worte

Presidential Frankenstein

I watched an interesting forum Friday night on TV. The economic advisors (possible future Treas Secs, please keep that I mind) of five of the major candidates expounded on their and their candidates' economic views. To say that they are smart is stating the obvious. It is however interesting to see their boss’s character reflected in them. Hillary Clinton’s guy is this pouty looking Wall Street guru, wearing an impeccable suit and a chip on his shoulder. Our free economics gunslinger, representing Giulliani doesn’t give a damn what he looks like, he is at least as ugly as his boss, and like him not afraid to go against the grain. John Edward’s proxy was a gentle professor, who is not affected by either rising oil prices or healthcare costs. John McCain’s man kept to himself a lot. And Obama’s passionate, but reading from notes, young’un was the only one who came remotely close to saying that we should stop spending 500 Billion of your money on kicking ass around the world. The other candidates don’t have economic advisors.

Looking at the session from a holistic point of view I want to take all of the candidates, rip them into little pieces and build myself a presidential Frankenstein consisting of all the good things that I want from your next president. I want him to do a Broadband Initiative (John Edwards) because without that, not only will a lot of menial jobs be sent to China, we will also not create any more new economy jobs. I want to stop wasting money on weapons of mass destruction (Presumably Obama, although he can’t say it for fear of being a dove). I want to keep the USA on a firm free market standing (Giulliani) because I am from Austria, and I witnessed the policies of economic stagnation in the old world. I want John McCains guy to keep to himself a little less, because then I could maybe talk myself into taking a piece of his boss for my presidential Frankenstein as well. And I like the idea of universal health coverage (Hillary Clinton’s guy seemed most passionate about that).

The one thing that stood out is that not one of them has a short term solution for foreign oil dependency and global warming. Not one of them wants to have a hydrogen car by the end of the decade. If this is depressing, at least it is honest.