With the "surge" in Iraq a failure and incompetence still the governing philosophy of the White House, the presidential primary campaign is a gracious reminder that this national nightmare is in its last throes. The bar has been set low for the 44th president, but the stakes tower.
Nineteen candidates now strut across debate sets and state fairs. Nine Republicans and eight Democrats, each convinced they alone are the tonic for the United States' malaise. Unfortunately, most of them are wrong. Who are these would-be presidents, and how scared should we be?
In the cases of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, very scared. Like George W. Bush, each candidate fantasizes on the prospects of being America's War President. Both campaigns largely dismiss domestic policy making for the glamour of sword wielding. Like Bush, each candidate will find that Giuliani's idea of "staying on offense" strains our military, increases global terrorism, strengthens al-Qaida and reduces domestic security.
In the cases of Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney, mildly scared. Like Bush, Thompson hopes that adopting a cocky Southern swagger will disguise his stunning lack of intellectual curiosity. And Romney, who sweats sleaze, continues to search for an issue he hasn't flip-flopped on during his remarkable career of shameless pandering. Instead of being driven by a particularly dangerous platform, a Romney or Thompson presidency would reflect the Rovian conviction that power is to be pursued for its own sake.
As for the rest of the GOP field, amusement is probably more fitting than fear. While Tom Tancredo blathers about the menace of brown people and Duncan Hunter tries to remember why he's running for president, Sam Brownback continues to whither in anonymity. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are discovering that their modicum of integrity is a black mark among many primary voters.
The Democratic contenders provide a welcome contrast. Across a litany of pressing issues, each candidate appears eager to address demands for security, justice and basic sanity. But this motley field is checkered with critical distinctions.
Hillary Clinton's candidacy represents the sweetest opportunity to sucker punch the Limbaughs and O'Reillys of America. As fulfilling as twisting the knife in the vast right-wing conspiracy would be, it would provide a shallow and hollow victory. Politics has to be more about settling scores, and another Clinton presidency would agitate too many hornet nests, jeopardizing progress on several fronts.
John Edwards is similarly itching to settle scores, although on behalf of America's forgotten. Edwards has been the most impressive leader of the field, standing tough on economic justice and Iraq, while the other candidates keep a finger to the political winds. Unfortunately, being right on the issues isn't a sufficient r?sum? for being president. The true candidate with experience issues to address, I foresee an Edwards presidency hobbled by ineffectiveness.
Of the 19 running, Barack Obama is the candidate best positioned to restore United States' greatness. His senate term is complemented by a career legislating in Illinois's state senate, lecturing on constitutional law and community organizing.
Obama has the potential to redefine the political landscape, igniting an idealism on par with the movements launched by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. With today's cynicism-plagued politics, there is a desperate yearning for something better, something transformative.
The other Democrats (not including Mike Gravel) offer important contributions - Joe Biden brings a refreshing demand for seriousness on Darfur, Dennis Kucinich is about 20 years ahead of most - but none bring the same coalition to Washington or present the same face of progress abroad. Every four years is a national gamble, but this time, Barack Obama is our best bet.
Jacob Shelly is a junior in the School of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.
