email: cavebear2118 AT verizon DOT com

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Presidential Candidates, 2

 Angel AbbyGrace asked "Are you remembering the "Russian Reset" with Hill?"

Well, I did have to google "Russian Reset" and it WAS kind of funny.  Something about a mistranslated American word into Russian  on a symbolic fake "reset button gadget" (and noting it had been signed off on as accurate by the Russian embassy).

But I wasn't arguing politics.  I was thinking about the current presidential candidates and who could stand up among world leaders facing someone like Putin.

There are darn few of the current crop that could.   It's awful! Marco Rubio comes across like the intern designated to bring the serious leaders their coffee. Jeb! is a wimp.  Trump would be out-bullied by Putin.  Walker and Kasich would be dismissed as bullying teacher unions (though at least Putin would like THAT!

And I'm not being mean to just Republicans.  Politically, I'm more aligned with Bernie Sanders; I'd love to talk to him all day.  But he is basically a mayor of a small place.  He has no executive or international experience.  O'Malley was a great Governor of a minor State (and for all I know,he could be a very good Chief Executive in calm prosperous times).

It is just that I can't find anyone but Hillary Clinton who could look eye to eye with someone like Putin and not flinch.  She's hard as nails.  And I don't mean fingernails...

To prove the point that I am politically unbiased regarding "strength" of presidents, who would I take today from the past?

Teddy! (Roosevelt, not Kennedy), Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan...  Yeah, some democrats and some republicans.  Like I said, I'm not arguing politics here (yet). 

So if I wanted someone from the current  crop of people desiring to become President,  who would I want?  Well, aside from ME of course...  I would want Hillary Clinton.  She just has the personality to handle the job.  Seriously, you don't WANT some inexperienced and stupid "hey, I might actually get lucky and win" type as President here.

I remember seeing some political cartoon showing some guy being sworn into office and then in the 2nd panel he says to his political advisors, "OK, so what do I do NOW?".   THAT'S SCARY, and that's what I'm afraid most of the candidates WOULD do.

There are too many people who desperately WANT that job, but too few who really seem to have any idea what to DO with it. 

Clinton's politics don't align with mine perfectly.  And yes, she is a politician and bit of a slippery one at that.  But at the top job, experience and talent matter.  Few leaders are "nice" or "clean". 

At the risk of echoing Donald ("I went Wharton, so I'm smart") Trump, I have to say I have a degree in Political Science.  I study this stuff to this day.  We are far past the times when we elected successful Generals because they knew how to manage a whole army.  World affairs are bigger than armies now. 

What a US President needs is the skill to manage international chaos.  The only candidate I see who could do that is Hillary Clinton. 

1 comment:

ANGEL ABBYGRACE said...

I am linking an article from the Washington Post about the "russian reset" it was more than just a gimmick. It was suppose to jump start or reset the Russians relationship with the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/03/17/the-failure-of-the-u-s-russia-reset-in-9-photos/

You are right about Hillary being hard as nails. I agree. She is.
But, I think you are incorrect that she is the only person amongst the Presidential candidates that would hold the Russians accountable. Putin is a very tough KGB man, I don't underestimate anything he has done. Trump, Christie, Paul and no matter what you may think of his politics Cruz are all in their own ways very tough men. I'm just pointing out that Hillary has had her shot with the Russians and yes she gave the Russian ambassador an actual button that translated into "overcharge" not reset. Besides that bungle nothing ever got reset. It sure appears the Russians are doing whatever they want, including embarrassing Barry's current administration over Syria.

I know it's water under the bridge but during the 3rd Presidential debate in 2012 between Mittens and Barry, Mittens said one of our biggest geopolitical foes was the Russians and Barry proceeded to ask him if he was still in the 1980's? I think time has proven Mittens was right about that.

If the American public was looking for someone with vast international experience for President why did they elect Barry in the first place? I say that rhetorically because it's a moot point. He was elected twice.