Narrowing the Field

A version of the following appeared as one of my weekly columns in the (Chester) Village News.

Thus far, I’ve named my dream candidate for president – and my nightmare. Today, I’ll briefly survey the rest of the field.

Logically, I’ll start with the Democrats. As a progressive – or, if you insist, a “liberal” – I tend to agree with Democrats more often on the issues, though not so often that I don’t wish for a third option. Given the Democrats’ reluctance to take bold positions – or nominate bold candidates – I’m increasingly inclined to regard them as bigger obstacle to progressive government than the Republicans.

I'm also concerned that electing a Democrat in 2008 would be a wasted opportunity. If the mess in Mesopotamia dominates the attention of our next Commander in Chief – and a combination of war and economic slowdown limit the funds and political capital available to make real progress on such issues as health care and the environment – we might as well elect a decent Republican, if there is one, and leave it to the GOP to clean up their war.

We can always elect a Democrat – or someone even greener and/or more progressive – in 2012.

That said, several Democrats strike me as credible candidates. Senator Joe Biden is an experienced, intelligent statesman with solid foreign policy and national security credentials. He’s also unusually insightful; Biden was years ahead of the curve in detecting Iraq’s tendency to fragment into three essentially separate states. I just wish he had the gumption to proceed to the logical conclusion – endorsing outright partition as America’s way out.

Bill Richardson – the only Hispanic candidate in the race – has a most impressive resume. A former Congressman, Cabinet member, and Ambassador to the United Nations – Richardson is now Governor of New Mexico. His diplomatic credentials – especially in negotiating with people who don’t like us – are remarkable. Richardson isn’t exactly charismatic, but if we need a President to undo the damage Mr. Bush has done to our foreign relations, he seems a solid choice.

Barack Obama strikes me as a man who will be President. But not, I hope, yet. He’s obviously highly intelligent and articulate – and his approach to international affairs reminds me of the confident pragmatism of JFK. Also – considering the two presidents to emerge from the “me generation” – his not being a Boomer is a real plus. That said, three years in the U.S. Senate isn’t much experience. Obama in 2012, maybe. Obama in 2016, sure. But in 2008?

In terms of policy positions, intellectual brilliance and overall talent, John Edwards is clearly the class of the Democratic field. He’s a marvelous communicator, and his roots go deep into the half of America too long neglected by both parties.With a friendly Congress – and quiet on the international front – John Edwards might prove another FDR. But without a workable exit strategy from Iraq – and Edwards doesn’t have one – how much could he really achieve?

On the Republican side, I confess, I’m more entertained than impressed. Ron Paul, a genuine libertarian, is a voice Americans need to hear – but not from the Oval Office. Texas oughta send him to the Senate.

Mike Huckabee has charm, and he’s obviously no dummy. But in the 21st century, can we afford to elect a President so indifferent to science that he can’t accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution?

Rudy Giuliani is an American original - a character out of some 1930's tough-guy flick. I agree with him on many domestic issues, but I’m wary of his Napoleonic ego.

Mitt Romney is intelligent, accomplished, articulate. He even looks presidential. But from his record, I can’t tell if he’s conservative, liberal – or a political android, his opinions stored on an infinitely rewritable memory chip. My gut tells me Romney is all about Romney.

He reminds me of Mark Warner.

Which brings us to John McCain, a man I’ve long admired. McCain isn’t perfect. Occasionally – as with his embrace of Jerry Falwell – his ambition leads him to do things that occasion a real frisson.

But, as David Brooks – The New York Times’ brilliant conservative columnist – recently noted, McCain is the only genuinely great figure in the race. McCain has character. He’s always thought for himself. He’s proved willing to tackle thorny issues, such as campaign finance reform. Having been tortured, he rejects the use of torture. He’s good on the environment. He also seems capable of unlimited growth.

In that sense, he reminds me of Senator John Warner, one of America's national treasures.

McCain also strikes me as the candidate best qualified to clean up the mess in Mesopotamia. An Annapolis man, McCain was an early critic of Mr. Bush’s misconduct of the war. He called for a “surge” – and took the resulting heat – long before the President.I’ve never agreed with McCain on Iraq, but I trust him. He’d use his best judgment and keep an open mind toward the war’s shifting fortunes – never clinging to a policy out of sheer stubbornness.

Yes, he’s a Republican – but if Mesopotamia remains the dominant issue confronting America through the next four years, we might just need a man of John McCain’s character, background and abilities.

Now, to be clear, I’m still hoping some Democratic candidate will enunciate a viable endgame for Mesopotamia. I don't see anything working, short of a three-way partition, withdrawing our long-term troops into an independent Kurdistan, and dealing with the consequent unpleasantness with Turkey - but maybe someone will come up with something.

However, until I see that plan, I’m leaning toward the honorable Senator from Arizona for 2008 - and working toward a genuine, progressive/green insurgency in 2012.