Realism before Idealism

BY LORETTA REDD
After the election of 2004, I didn’t think it was possible for the Democratic Party to commit suicide again…but here they go. With a media competing on 900 channels, thousands of publications and a million blogs, the search for new angles and fresh faces ironically offers an advantage to those candidates with the least experience or the most unproven message.

By this point in the race, the Republicans would have pretty much selected their ‘main man’… and trust me, with Republicans, it will always be a man. But few conservatives I have spoken with actually believe they have a prayer of regaining the White House, especially after the pretzel-choking, frat-boy President of the past eight years. Typically a disciplined bunch, once conservatives identify their candidate, so that “Who’s yo’ daddy?” is answered, they are content to fall in line.
Though many of my political friends will no doubt draw back in horror, I will go on record as saying that if Barak H. Obama is the Democratic candidate, they may well lose the Presidency.
Here’s why, in both engineering and political terms.
There is a limit to the distance a bridge can be built before requiring some kind of vertical girder to hold the expanse up against gravity. Our nation’s next President will have to bridge the current span of world distrust, economic imbalance, military misuse and ethical malaise; probably the widest in its two hundred years of history. Bridging that raging river of administrative incompetence will require several support points before it can safely reach the other side.
As a party, the Democrats must nominate someone who is first, a realist, before they can afford to put forth an idealist.
Experience has to come before imagination when there is such a broad expanse of dangerous mismanagement to bridge. As much as some would love to be inspired by dreams of reaching the shores of paradise, they must first ‘correct course’ with a proven, experienced leader, or in the Clintons’ case, two leaders.
Reporters of course, find this boring, preferring the novelty of newness from the Obama camp, to the “tired,” familiar statements by Clinton. “Been there, heard that” for the past twelve years, they yawn. With the media, there are no points scored for consistency or staying ‘on message,’ which translates into an unintentional preference for the unexamined candidate.
I don’t think there’s a single person, including the dog-sitter, who hasn’t been interviewed and questioned in Hillary and Bill’s life. Every wart and worrisome phrase has been aired and dissected. Then there’s Obama, who has strangely received little or no real criticism from the conservative press, including more than half of the major news publications, starting with Rupert Murdoch’s empire.
There is a troubling, deafening silence from the right-wing punditry when it comes to the Senator from Illinois. So far, not a single, slanderous word about Obama (traceable, at least) from that genius of smear tactics and twisted logic, king Karl Rove. Even the venomous Ann Coulter, who long ago let pure viciousness replace intelligence in her sick political analysis, has turned her viper attacks mostly on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
And let’s not forget those self-funded ‘issue’ groups who stop at nothing to destroy a reputation or plant lies in the gullible mind of the public. Recall the racist smear campaign in 2004 against one of their ‘own’ candidates, John McCain, regarding his adopted child from Bangladesh.
Speaking of John McCain, conservatives are now steering away from the robotic Ken doll, Mitch Romney, or New York’s own Godfather, Rudy Giuliani, in favor of Senator McCain. Once vilified as a questionable war hero and too ancient to lead, he is now being touted by conservatives as the ‘steady as you go, security first, experience counts’ kind of guy.
Don’t get me wrong; I really, really want to see a change in leadership and philosophy in Washington D.C. I long for ethics to replace evasion, and policy over paranoia. And I want a grown up who comprehends the consequences and horrors of war as our Commander In Chief, whether that person wears wing tips or high heels.
But I am troubled, that in the media’s excitement with ‘new’, there’s increasing chance of Barak’s nomination. And unlike Hillary, who has had every negative implication and accusation imaginable spoken or written; his yet untested, un-vilified, and untarnished persona will be innocently offered to the wolves.
At that point, look out, because based on history, there will be a heartless but effective campaign of implication, fear-mongering, religious blow-back and character annihilation never before witnessed. I can imagine it now…
“What was Barak’s middle name, again? Did you say, ‘Hussein? Are you sure he’s really an American…didn’t he come from Kenya?”
Does anyone believe the right wing-nuts aren’t going to drive that sort of paranoid propaganda home?
Clinton may not be the latest Madison Avenue gizmo, but in our country’s need to recover from the damage done by the Bush administration, experience should be considered over novelty, and practicality should be elevated over stage performance. First, the well-supported bridge over troubled waters, then we can afford to dream when we’re safe on the other side.

E-mail Loretta Redd your comments to loretta@santabarbarafree.com.