Many pundits (even some on this side,) think the Democratic race is already over, and Hillary a 'shoo-in' to win. But I'm not so certain. I don't think returning to a carbon-copy of Bill Clinton's presidency, but minus his large shoes in the Oval Office, would be worth the sacrifice of the last two Bush terms. I think it would be a retrograde step, an 'imperial-lite' presidency without the smirk, but with a grimace.
Hillary, unfortunately is simply not a pleasant human being. Neither was Ike, but at least he was able to convince the American public, that he was... "good old Ike". Obama is a little gushing on foreign policy, yes, a trifle inexperienced, and a little weak on substance, but these are early days. HR Clinton on the other hand, constantly harkens to the 'good ole days' of Clinton's tenure, as if they were hallowed times, but without Bill's common touch, humility and apology, for the errors made.
The Bush presidency has disheartened the United States and the world so much, that the next election should be about real change, not just shifting gears into reverse, straight back to the Clinton presidency and era, indeed, without the most charismatic part at the helm... Bill himself.
Mark Kleiman has two back-to-back columns that encapsules my sentiments, on this issue, particularly his critque of Hillary. First, 'Obama, nukes, and idiot-elite opinion' which ends with:
But a reporter or politician who half slept through a briefing from the Hudson Institute about nuclear strategic doctrine might have the vague sense that "We're not supposed to say we won't use nukes," without any sense of the context in which that doctrine applies. And if the reporters and the politicians get together to say, "Ooooooohhhhhhh! Obama made a mistake! See how inexperienced he is!" some voters will wind up believing it, never noticing that the "mistake" consisted of reciting an obvious piece of common sense, with which the voter actually agrees.
and the follow-up piece, 'Obama vs.HRC: not just shadow-boxing' It begins:
Kevin Drum thinks that the Obama-HRC foreign policy spats are shadow-boxing, fuelled by the desire of both campaigns to get ink, and that the dispute conceals basic agreement.
I don't think either half of that is right.
It seems to me that there are real differences here. HRC thinks we ought to go back to Bill Clinton's foreign policy. Obama doesn't.
Obama is rejecting the "our sunuvabitch" strategy of making nice to Musharraf (and, I think, the House of Saud as well). HRC says that's "naive" and "irresponsible." The MSM agreed, until the polling showed that Obama had the country with him.
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!