2008?

A Marist Poll indicates that 40% of Democrats would like to see Hillary Clinton run for President in 2008 and 25% of Republican would like Rudolph Guiliani to do the same.

But I've got to ask, what do either of them bring to the table?

Hillary seems to toe the line and preach DNC talking points a majority of the time, which is to say she stands for just about nothing and is easily swayed by the polls. That's not meant to be an insult to anyone out there who votes Democratic, it's just what it is... as previously discussed, the DNC is rudderless at the moment and in the midst of an identity crisis. Remember that last time Hillary was given carte blanche to quarterback a national inititive? It was the failed attempt to socialize our healthcare system. You can be sure this will be tops on her agenda if she receives her party's nomination. I can tell you that in the real world, it doesn't work. I've lived it, been cared for by it, and felt the pain of this type of health care system. I agree that our current system is costly and we need to look at outside-the-box ways to improve it. You can't run healthcare like you would a defense spending project. Lowest cost isn't always the best, and that's exactly what you'll get if our government is running healthcare.

I don't see all that many redeeming qualities about Rudy either. Sure, in general he says all the things that make me warm and fuzzy inside as any "conservative" would. From most accounts, he had a great record as a federal prosecutor, and he did a fine job as mayor of New York City, particularly after Sept. 11th. But does that make one Presidential? No more or less than George W. Bush or Ronald Regan I guess, but he brings a lot of baggage to the table. The DNC hates just about anyone who makes a small fortune, and Rudy has done that with his consulting company and public speaking tours. All of this will put on display and picked over for anything that will hurt him (as it should). He'll be dragged through the mud over his relationship with Bernard Kerick, the former NYPD Commissioner. And there is also that whole affair and messy divorce from his wife. None of those issues would kill his nomination, but what else does he bring to the table? I don't think anyone really knows for sure.

A Love Letter

I found an interesting letter today, written by former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich to DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

A couple highlights from the letter:

In regards to comments made by Dean "Now that we're there in Iraq, we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now" Kucinich replied:

Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.

Following this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side (the President's party always loses seats in the midterm election), the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the President to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The "no light" strategy yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a President increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.

Good call Dennis. Democrats have proven over and over again that if they want to lose elections, all they have to do is imitate George W. Bush. People won't vote for change if there is nothing to change. You might as well keep who you have in office.

I've grown to like Dennis, because even though I don't think he's electable as president, he seems to shoot it straight. He makes some more good points in this paragraph, but unfortunately makes a few comments that make him look foolish. As a member of the minority, it's possible he is obligated to toss in some inaccuracies here and there to toe the party line, but he's never struck me as that sort of guy.

President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President's war and occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.

No doubt Bush had some bad intel in regards to Iraq. Some of that is his fault, some of it is not. He didn't turn the CIA into the organization it is today Dennis. Your hero's Bill Clinton and the Democratic majority of yesteryear did that. It takes time to get good covert intelligence. Once you pull the pieces out, you can't simply reintegrate them. It doesn't work.

Iraq certainly has more terrorists in country now than it did when Saddam was ruling. It's the only (somewhat) effective way to fight against our military. Yet you complain about terrorism in Iraq, but we didn't see you writing letters to Clinton when Osama was running true terror camps in Afghanistan.

The Arab resentment for America is not greater today than it was prior to the war. An overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated us for either: 1. Not supporting their uprising following the first gulf war or 2. Leading the international efforts to sanction Iraq for it's lack of compliance to weapons inspections. Those people don't hate us anymore, they are happy to be free, electing a government of their choosing, and the lifting of U.N. sanctions. The Saudi Royal family is feeling the pressure to allow regular citizens to run for local political offices. Saudi women are not yet allowed to run for office, but they are being allowed to speak their mind in ways that weren't allowed even a year ago. Syria has ended it's occupation of Lebanon. Who do they have to thank for this? U.S. foreign policy. The writing is on the wall that if you rule a country and aren't allowing basic freedoms, you will have to deal with Bush & Co. eventually. This has been a good change-agent so far, but it doesn't come for free. Soldiers will fight and they will die. As sad as it is, these men and women know the score when they join. Most understand it, and are obviously willing to fight the fight if they joined.

I love the line about Bush's cronies at Halliburton. The President has ties to the company through V.P. Cheney, his time as Governor of Texas, and in private business. I won't deny those ties, but every time someone mentions this, I feel the need to ask "who would you rather have do the job?" Texas companies like Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown & Root are doing the majority of the work in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are they only companies equipped to do the job in deployed areas. I have a suggestion for you, Dennis. Resign from your job and start up your own contracting company. Just be sure it's big enough, has enough employees and equipment to do the job, and then bid on government contracts. Part of the problems involving Halliburton earlier, when they got in trouble was that they were the only company bidding on the work, and they tried to pull a fast one on us and got caught.

The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.

Kucinich actually makes some sense here and we actually agree on something. Dean needs to shepherd the Democratic Party back to the left. If he doesn't get the party's identity back soon, 2006 and 2008 will be a repeat of 2002 and 2004.

Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.

I think we'll end up leaving Iraq sooner than we left the Balkans. But we shouldn't talk about that, because that was a war largely fought during the Clinton Administration so there is obviously nothing wrong with entering a region and not leaving for 10 years.

As far as the past repeating itself in 2006? I can only hope.