Lesson learned

Dan: You make a lot of charitable donations don't you?
Isaac: I try.
Dan: Who do you give your money to?
Isaac: I used to give to the Democratic Party.
Dan: Not anymore?
Isaac: Well you get your heart broken enough times you learn your lesson.

- Sports Night

I'm giving the Sports Night quote up front this time to put the news of Edwards withdrawal from the presidential race into my own personal perspective. Anyone who pays attention to these kinds of things knew this was coming. He just doesn't capture peoples attention the way Obama and Clinton do. I hate to say it, because I like to believe people are smarter than this, but he doesn't have the cachet of potentially making history. As much as I know that many people have well thought out, well informed, reasons for choosing Obama or Clinton over Edwards, and I've had some excellent debates over the past months about it, I also know that there are many out there who, excited over the idea of the electing the first woman or the first black president, have used that as their sole criteria when casting their votes.

I am, like many, of the opinion that not one of the candidates on either side (or without party affiliation) could possibly be worse at the job than what we've been subjected to these last seven years. I also share the rather popular opinion that it doesn't really matter who the democrats put up on their ticket because this election is practically gift wrapped for them. I share this opinion as well, eloquently voiced by Dan Savage, that I might not mind so much if they did lose to a McCain/Huckabee republican ticket. The thing is though, when you're looking at electoral politics, you may think anything is better, you may think Hillary or Obama (or the two together) could do, not just a better job, but actually a pretty good job, or that even McCain/Huckabee would be, as well, not just better, but actually okay, but the question I put out there is this, who would be the best person for the job?

Not who would be better at it that Bush and Chenny have been. Not who would be good. Not who would be adequate. Not even who's position on the issues do you most closely agree with. Who would be best at the job?

You see there are really three criteria I use in deciding which candidate to vote for. Number one on the list is electability. If they aren't electable it doesn't really matter how good they would be at the job or how much I agree with their positions on the issues. The electability factor isn't so great this time though, because, as I've said, the democrats almost can't lose. The second factor, in a general election, would be agreement on the issues, but I'm not talking about the general election, I'm talking about the primaries. It's true, there are subtle and somewhat important differences between the democratic candidates in this primary and it so happens that I do mostly agree with Edwards, but the difference is so small between Obama, Clinton and Edwards that I pretty much don't take that into account here. The third factor is the most important one in this case and that is effectiveness. Again, it doesn't matter how great the candidates positions are on the issues if, once elected, they can't put any of those great ideas into practice.

The main problem with politics is that it takes two different skills to be electable and to be effective. They aren't necessarily opposites though, there's no reason the two can't exist in one person; Bill Clinton had them both. In fact what it really takes it two different types of charisma, one that appeals to a large audience, that makes the people at large sit up and listen and feel like the understand (even if they don't), the other is the back room deal making type of charisma, the type that is fueled by logic, that backs people into a corner and gives them no choice but to agree with you while simultaneously making them believe that it was their own idea all along. That first type of charisma is what gets people elected; it's what Obama has more of than any of the other candidates out there this year (on either side). The second type though is what gets things done once the ballots are cast and all the inaugural balls are over. That second type is what Edwards has. It's what has made him so successful as a trial attorney.

That ship has sailed though. Edwards isn't going to be the one. I do hope that the winner of this race has the good sense to offer him the vice presidency (and that he has the sense to take it). If it's Obama I don't think he gets much of anything accomplished in his first term if he puts Hillary as his Vice and if he doesn't get anything done in his first term he's less likely to get a second term. If it's Hillary, well, she could probably get some things done with Obama as her Vice instead of Edwards provided she abandons her current philosophy of following rather than leading. If she continues to go with the flow then she needs Edwards to get anything done too.

My secret hope is that Hillary has just been acting the follower in order to get her this far and that once she's elected she turns back into that idealistic fighter that she seemed to be in the early days of her husbands presidency. Since I can't count on that happening, I have to base my opinions on what I've seen not what I hope to see, and I have to say that I'm leaning towards Obama. Of course, Obama only works with Edwards on his ticket as well where as Hillary has the potential to work with anyone else on her ticket so, maybe I'm leaning towards her. I don't think I care much for these two choices.