I think I've written about this before but I'm not that wild about anyone who runs for public office. Never have been, never expect to be. Moreover, I question whether deep down, anyone really is. I think we all select the Least Objectionable Candidate and then having made that decision, we try to convince everyone that he or she is terrific, perfect, sent-by-God, flawless, the best hope of America, a true leader, etc. Often in the process, we convince ourselves of that to some delusional extent.
I can understand how some people preferred George W. Bush over the alternatives at the time but I don't believe that anyone who said he was a great man really thought that. My friends who supported him — I had more than you might think — always seemed to be cringing over the mangled English, the bad economic news, the certainty over so much of the Iraq War that has since been found to be untrue…I could make a very long list.
Time and again, they had to put on brave faces and pretend none of that stuff diminished their respect for Their President. Does anyone think it wouldn't have if it was done by President Gore?
The reverse is just as true. I may well wind up voting for and supporting Hillary Clinton. I think she's a smart woman and I have a certain sympathy for her because I think she's been smeared by fake scandal after fake scandal. But I promise you (and more important, myself) that I'm not going to start cheerleading for her and pretending she's The Best of All Possible Candidates. At best, she or anyone might be The Best of All Candidates Who'll Be On My Ballot. Which is sure not the same thing.
Lately, she reminds me of one of those candidates who if you asked them their position on a vital issue and they were completely honest, they'd say, "I don't know. My advisors haven't finished analyzing the polls yet." Her statement today of opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Deal doesn't make a whole lot of sense as anything but a vote-getting calculation. It hasn't changed much since an earlier version she supported. This is how she is lately with everything.
Not long ago, one of the worst things you could say about a politician was that he was for something before he was against it…like John Kerry was for the Iraq War before he was against it. That kind of shift was rarely viewed as new enlightenment or changing one's position due to new developments or new information. I could respect it one of those contexts but a lot of folks couldn't. They saw it as wishy-washiness, trying to have it both ways, being willing to say anything to get elected, etc.
These days, we don't even seem to expect our candidates to be consistent. Ben Carson was for some forms of Gun Control before he was against them all. Bernie Sanders was (somewhat) against national marriage equality before he was for it. Donald Trump was probably at some point for everything he's now against and against everything he's now for. The few candidates who haven't done wide U-Turns are all polling at 4% or less.
I don't like any of these people that much. I'm going to vote for whoever won't try to cripple Obamacare and health suppliers like Planned Parenthood, whoever's less likely to pack the Supreme Court with more Scalias, whoever seems less prone to initiate sequels to the Iraq War in Iraq or elsewhere, whoever's not going to slash taxes for the rich and compassion for the poor and so forth. It'll have to be someone who won't play ostrich when anyone utters the words, "Climate Change."
Sure looks like that'll be the Democrat. I'm thinking this election has a lot of twists and turns ahead but the nominee of that party could well be Ms. Clinton.
But I won't get into that trap of thinking she (or he if it's Sanders or Biden) is perfect, wonderful, ideal, etc. And if you're likely to vote for the G.O.P. nominee, you can save yourself a lot of pretending and disappointment by not getting into that trap, either. If there are such people in politics today, the silly (and monetary) demands we place on them pretty much guarantee they won't make it through the gantlet.