One of the nice things about having dual US/UK citizenship, I often joke, is that I get to vote for lousy politicians in two countries.
This year, however, the stakes are higher than ever. In my native country, the US, the quality of candidates seems exceptional. It couldn't have come at a better time, when the challenges facing the US and the world are so serious.
All of the candidates seem to be talking about "change" -- and after eight years of the Bush Administration there's no wonder the term resonates so strongly.
At times it almost seemed like I wouldn't live to see
the day when President Bush and his people were on their way out the
door. No I mean really, given their agenda, I truly almost thought I
wouldn't live to see the day.
But to be honest, like Hillary Clinton,
I was for the Iraq war before I was against it. As my French friend SP
recently told me, "Our friendship almost ended over that issue." Come
to think of it, the same was true for France and America themselves. SP
and I were just proxies.
I went with the information I had at
the time and so did Hillary. We were both wrong. Of course, I didn't
have a vote in the Senate and Hillary did, so maybe it would have been
better if she had been more skeptical. After all, the French were.
Still, it's all well and good for Barack Obama
to assert that he was always against the war, but then he wasn't in the
Senate when it was actually necessary to cast a vote. To my ear, "vote
for me because I didn't vote for the war" seems a little disingenuous
coming from him.
Hell, I didn't vote for the war either. Why not elect me?
Actually, don't answer that.
Hillary
has worked deliberately and determinedly to put herself in a position
to be president. Her views, compared with what we've been stuck with
for nearly eight years, are light years ahead.
And those of us who are from New York are aware of how hard she has
worked as senator. She's taken it seriously, and far more than just
carpetbagging, she's worked hard for the state and won admiration from
across the political spectrum.
Hillary has done this because she
has a political agenda that she believes in, and she wants to put it
into effect. How ironic that her historic candidacy, as the first woman
to have a real chance at a major party nomination and at the presidency
itself, is now overshadowed by the charismatic Obama and his bid to be
the first black man to have such an opportunity.
We've
gone from thinking that no woman or black person could ever gain the
White House to having to accept that only one of them can. Couldn't we
have timed this better?
I worry for Hillary, hoping that she
won't end up being like this year's New England Patriots, destined for
greatness but stopped three points short by the
young upstart. I think Obama needs more seasoning, and he has time on
his side anyway -- but they said that about Eli Manning too.
And if the real Super Bowl is going to be against John McCain,
then as much as I would like to see Hillary have her shot I wonder if
it isn't Obama who has the best chance of beating the centrist McCain.
Hillary is a polarizing figure, and McCain may draw the independents
away from her. Obama's vision of hope and change -- however fuzzy --
may resonate far more widely than Hillary could.
Nevertheless,
McCain is one of the first Republican presidential candidates in a long
time who hasn't filled me with revulsion. As bad as each one seems, the
next one seems even worse. McCain is the first to reverse that trend.
Considering
all that, I've voted for Hillary in the overseas primary. If we want
change, really, I think she's got plenty to spare.
Tomorrow we'll see if voters agree.
Comments