Presidential possibilities for 2008 frightening

By Brent VonCannon
The Collegian

SOME MIGHT ASK: “is it too soon to start looking ahead to who might be elected the next president of the United States in 2008?” For those of you who have lives, the answer, of course, is yes. “Let’s just get through one election at a time,” you might say.

But for those of us in the journalism profession, planning ahead is one of our fortes. We are concerned with events from a present, future, and past perspective, usually in that order.

So looking ahead to who might be called on to lead the most powerful nation on earth in just two short years, and privately cringing at the current list of wannabes, is part of our job.

For starters, whoever succeeds President Bush in the Oval Office probably won’t have big shoes to fill (even if they are Texas-size cowboy boots). By that time we might be thinking: ‘Anyone, even Robin Williams, would make for a better president.’

But the next president will have big problems to solve — Iraq, runaway debt, etc. It’s not like 1992 when, after we were victorious in the first Gulf War and the Cold War and just starting to get serious about cutting the deficit, Bill Clinton was elected, who then proceeded to eliminate the deficit and make a few changes to right the economy.

So let’s look at the current crop of possible presidential candidates. On the Democratic side, there is the presumed front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. Forgive me, but I just can’t get excited about the prospect of a President Hillary Rodham Clinton. After 12 years of the Bush dynasty, continuing the Clinton carnival doesn’t seem like the best option. And God forbid if it’s Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush in the 2012 election.

Why can’t we just elect somebody without the last name of Clinton or Bush, the way it always used to be?

At any rate, Hillary is too polarizing a figure. At least half of the country has already rejected her. The Democrats have got to stop with the nonsense of regularly surrendering up to 30 states to the other party every election. Focusing on one large state to tip the balance is not a good recipe for success.

After the current administration, this country will need a uniter. Could that come in the form of Republican Senator John McCain, his party’s current front-runner? His independence is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise air-tight, see-no-evil Republican Congress. His war hero credentials and support for campaign-finance reform could attract votes beyond the GOP base. But he is also old, and he continues to defend our current failing course in Iraq.

What about Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of heavily Democratic Massachusetts? His ability to get Democrats to vote for him, his successful push for universal health care in his state, and his Hollywood-like good looks make him an attractive candidate. But he seems to be shedding his moderate image in order to gain the support of his party’s right-wing base, thus opening him up to charges of flip-flopping on issues.

Speaking of alleged flip-floppers, another Massachusetts politician, Senator John Kerry, appears poised to make another run at the presidency. But does he have any new ideas? He opposes the Iraq war now, which is slightly different from the several positions he took on the war in the last campaign.

There are other possibilities too numerous to mention — Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Bill Frist, “America’s Mayor” Rudy Giuliani to name a few more.

One beef I have with modern-day politics is it’s increasing failure to produce quality candidates. None who might fall into that category ever last long enough to actually capture their party’s presidential nomination.

There’s certainly no Franklin Roosevelt in the current crop of likely contenders, or even a Harry Truman for that matter. It’s usually a choice between the lesser of two evils.

So maybe I’ll play it safe, hold my nose and vote for Arnold in 2008.

At least I know he can’t get elected president.

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>