I guess I’ll vote for Obama…but I Heart Huckabee

For the first time since 1952, no incumbent is running for President. By this I mean no President is running for re-election and there isn’t a current Vice President waiting in the wings to take things over when his boss retires. Contrary to popular belief, there weren’t many “Draft Alben Barkley” signs floating around the Democratic Convention in 1952. Therefore, this truly is a monumental election. It’s a time for a truly fresh start on both sides of the aisle. The Democratic Party has the chance to show true leadership during a time of struggle and the Republican Party has a chance to re-define itself as the party of the future and the country. Well, neither party is doing this. Democrats are running the same boring campaign that they always run, and by that I mean run to the left/center while trying not to piss off minorities and women. Republicans are avoiding minorities at all costs and trying to get Senator Trent Lott to introduce a bill in the Senate that either involves flag burning or gay marriage. It’s boring. Really boring. Same old slogans with the same old style of speaking, and all the candidates are talking about nothing. But here’s something that no one seems to mention…

A lot of people, fueled by the media, think this election is historic because for the first time, they believe, there is a woman running for President and there’s an African American running as well. But wait a minute, I’ve seen this before. Shirley Chisholm (D-NY) ran for President. Congresswoman Chisholm was a woman, and she was African-American…and she ran for President…so where’s the surprise? On January 23rd, 1972 Chisholm announced her candidacy for President of the United States. This was groundbreaking, monumental, orgasmic if you will.

Obviously, Chisholm did not become the first African American or female President of the United States. But to not even mention her name insults her legacy. Just because Senators Obama and Clinton cover the token Democratic Party response to the other party of White Guys does not mean that they are, by any shape or form, truly the first of their ‘kind’ to take such a bold step. And by the the way, even though people don’t mention the Honorable former Congresswoman, here’s a factoid you may like: She helped found the Democratic Black Caucus and worked on a bill, with George Wallace, to guarantee a minimum wage to domestic workers. Tell me, if you can, what current member of Congress who is running for President has helped pass ANY sort of legislation equal to that, and with the support of an ideological enemy? I raise my glass to you, Shirley Chisholm, for as the first ever female African American member of Congress you truly paved the way for Senators Clinton and Obama, and the fact that you are overlooked for your efforts sickens me. If you’d like to read more on the next great African American leader, other than Oprah, please read up on my friend Shirley Franklin, the current Mayor of Atlanta, Georgia…trust me, you’ll hear her name more in the coming months.

But here we are in the year 2007. A bunch of, for the most part, privileged white males are running for office, but it just so happens that two of these characters aren’t your average white males…in the sense that one isn’t exactly “white” and the other isn’t exactly “male.”

Don’t get me wrong, but I don’t really see a difference when people of privilege run for office. Both Obama and Clinton had very “easy” backgrounds, but one married into power whereas another actually kind of made their own greatness. So here, finally, is my endorsement:

I’m going with Barack Obama. Here’s a few reasons why: I don’t think that he truly does have all the answers, but at least he’s willing to admit that there are many things that he has to learn. It seems as though every political year people are talking about social security this or military spending that, yet in the meantime something like 9.11 happens, and then all of a sudden nobody really gives a shit about what they were talking about the week before. Sound familiar? It should, because it happened in 2000. Obama’s Achilles’ heel, according to his opponent Senator Clinton, appears to be his so-called “lack of experience” in foreign affairs. Well, I’m actually sad to say, she may be right, but here’s the question that needs to be asked: What, exactly, is the litmus test for experience when it comes to being President of the United States? How much experience did Governor Bill Clinton have in 1992 in matters of foreign policy? Or Ronald Reagan?

Here’s a great little tidbit for you. The most knowledgeable President, when it comes to foreign policy, was Richard Nixon. The best President when it comes to Domestic Policy? Lyndon Johnson. You know what those two have in common? They didn’t come a fancy family with a fancy name. Johnson rose to power through his Texas Charm and Nixon rose by being determined to be the best…because winners want to be in the best position possible and winners want the ball. Would it be smart for Obama to “sit this one out and gain ‘experience’”? Maybe…but history suggests that sometimes the right time is now, and that the right time that is now may not be here tomorrow, let alone four or perhaps eight years…and by that point he’s once-run has been, like John Edwards.

Truth be told, I didn’t see this happening. In 2006, I imagined John Kerry leading the way towards his inevitable White House win, and maybe choosing Obama or Senator Evan Bayh as his running mate. Aside from this I also envisioned former Vice President Al Gore taking another shot at the Oval Office. But Hillary Clinton? Is this the answer to the nation’s problems? Her outdated thinking and her saber-rattling are simply not the answers that we are truly looking for.

Obama may not have the “experience” necessary, according to Clinton, to be President. But he certainly is the breath of fresh air that Governor Clinton was in 1991 when he decided to take his lack of experience to the next level. Also, if Senator Clinton was simply Hillary Rodham, implying she never married Bill, she’d simply be another extremly rich lawyer that people called a bitch behind her back at cocktail parties in affluent homes outside of Chicago. Don’t even act like you disagree with me on that one.

If I were a Republican, however, I’d definitely go for a guy like Mike Huckabee, the other former Governor from Arkansas. I pretty much disagree with everything he stands for except for his push to get rid of shitty fatty foods from public schools (that’s a great idea). I first saw the man on Real Time with Bill Maher perhaps two years back because Huckabee, formerly a rather husky man, learned that he had Diabetes and suddenly lost one hundred and ten pounds and now advocates a healthy lifestyle. Normally I disagree with the whole “it happened to me now I’m a spokesman for it” mentality but since Diabetes is becoming an ever-increasing problem (a problem which afflicts the writer of this article) I can understand it. It sucks monitoring your diet, and it sucks altering your lifestyle to something that always feels like it’s outside of your control. Anyway, Huckabee is an interesting person. He raised taxes on gasoline and cigarettes in Arkansas when he was governor, and he says that while he doesn’t necessarily believe in evolution he also thinks that this wouldn’t make him a better or worse president. Call me crazy, but that sounds really, sickeningly, honest and it’s also refreshing.

I’m not endorsing Governor Huckabee because I think he’s a qualified candidate or that he makes sense on some issues, because I think he’s wrong on everything (for the most part), I’m endorsing him because he honestly seems…well…honest. He’s an ordained minister, and when he speaks of his personal relationship with Christ it’s obvious that he’s telling the truth, in his mind, about what he feels. I find that reassuring. I may believe one way, but it’s nice to see people being honest. He’s a great campaigner, which is why he’s my dark-horse candidate for the 2008 election. He’s Mitt Romney without looking sleazy or two-faced. Sure, his professional life prior top being governor consisted of him being a pastor…but who cares. He honestly believes in what he says, and unlike other pastors he’s not selling his believed Creator for cash. If I were a true-to-belief-Republican I’d vote Huckabee, and let’s just say you heard it here first…I think the rest of the country, especially the early primary states, are going to start thinking this as well.

Here’s what I like about Huckabee the most. Not coincidentally, it’s the same thing I like about Obama: I know that if I disagreed with either of them, in person, they wouldn’t think less of me. Both of these candidates care about people and the plight of everyday people. Whether they understand “everyday” life or not isn’t a matter of real importance - they both show compassion and leadership. They stand for what they believe in, but they also understand that not everyone thinks the way they do. True Compassion and True Leadership…sounds like Presidential Material to me…

…unless you enjoy being told what to do. I mean, if you’re into that I suggest putting the gag back in your mouth and voting for either Clinton or Giuliani. Be my guest. The safety word is banana…mumble it if you have to.

But I’ll leave you with one last piece of advice when it comes to understanding leadership, and this kind of works for all things…and it’s also a football reference. A lot of times in campaigns you hear the phrase “take what they give you” and a lot of people are happy with that. I disagree with that phrase. If you take what people give then you’re waiting and therefore not creating change. I prefer the phrase “make them take what you give” or “frame the debate” or “play by your rules.” If a Presidential Campaign is a football game, look at it like this: the first part (or first half if you will) you spend your time dinking and dunking trying to figure out what exactly to do. You don’t necessarily wanna show your hand, but you certainly don’t want to lose it quick. Then comes the halftime readjustment and in the second half you exploit the weaknesses of your opponent for your own personal gain. You look at your opponent, you study your opponent to the point where you know what they’re going to do before they even open their mouths, and then you destroy them when they’re just getting comfortable.

Call me crazy, but the scenario fits. If August-October is the first half of a Preisdential Primary, the second half is November-January (Iowa Caucus). Seems to me that Hillary has shown her weapons in the first half and scored a few touchdowns, but she’s only four points ahead of Obama…and there’s still plenty of time to be played. And, if I may say so myself, Obama has made an incredible halftime adjustment, and players, like politicians, always find their rhythm by the third quarter. This same idea also applies for Huckabee.

60 minute game…6 month campaign. It’s all the same. You play to win the game. Keep the play in front of you…though I’m not sure the Tampa Two plays into Presidential Primaries…give me a few weeks, I’ll make that argument work.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::  Email This Post   ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: