Presidential politics

The times have been…interesting lately in Washington. The impact of November’s election is beginning to hit, while the race for the next president that started practially with that last election is ramping up with more candidates. Lots of rhetoric and ill winds blowing. It’s combustible, I think.

The Economist thinks so, too.

WITH the Democrats back in the ascendant on Capitol Hill, American government is headed for gridlock in 2007. Frustrated by years of impotence and still smarting over Bill Clinton’s impeachment in the 1990s, House Democrats will block President George Bush at every turn.

They will, however, temper some of those politics because of their longer vision of recapturing the White House in ’08. But ‘gridlock’ is probably an accurate prediction.

Meanwhile, candidates for the presidency in 2008 will start jostling for cash and kudos. Hillary Clinton will seek to cement her grip on the Democratic nomination. Few doubt that America is ready for a woman president. But can Mrs Clinton win a national election? She would motivate Republicans to get out and vote like no other candidate—Jerry Falwell, a brimstone preacher, claims that not even the devil would provoke such opposition.

Strong words. But that’s the unfortunate atmosphere in a country already divided in other ways. We have to contend with the hositility of Bush-haters and Hillary-haters.

If Mrs Clinton stumbles, several less famous feet are waiting to step forward. John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who was John Kerry’s running-mate in 2004, has the necessary charm, looks and uplifting life story. But he is the most superficial of the serious contenders. He says America is two nations, one rich and the other so poor that its little girls cannot afford winter coats. His solution is to throttle free trade and pillory efficient retailers that sell cheap imported winter coats. With health-care costs exploding, do Americans really want a president who made his fortune suing doctors?

Well put by those Economist guys, though they don’t yet have steep background on at least one popular potential candidate.

Other Democratic hopefuls include Barack Obama, who is likeable and moderate. The only black senator, he is also rather charismatic. But he is also a relative novice, having been elected to the Senate only in 2004, and has little experience of running anything.

Here’s some experience he does have, and a record to show it.

2006  Senator Obama supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2006.

2005-2006  Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2005-2006.

2005  Senator Obama supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

2003  On the votes that the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Obama voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002  Based on information available in 2002, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council chose to endorse Senator Obama.

His popular book “The Audacity of Hope” has a great title. Too bad it doesn’t hold up on the most fundamental human right a leader can protect. National Review Online put a twist on that when they looked at the senator more closely while he was enjoying a lot of media buzz recently. Here’s just one snip from “The Audacity of Hype” on Obama’s voting record:

· Opposed any bans on partial birth abortions.

Audacity, indeed.