Today's Los Angeles Times' op-ed page contains an editorial AND an op-ed column arguing (for different reasons) for Hillary to stand down, come the 2008 presidential race.
First, the editorial:
The best thing Hillary Rodham Clinton could do for humanity is not run for president. Nothing against her personally, mind you; it's just that her aspirations could get in the way of her husband's worthier ones.
Followed by my favorite snip:
In our continuing quest to find an appropriate job for our favorite ex-president - a year and a half ago we suggested he become chairman of the Democratic Party - we now offer an even better suggestion. This time, it's a post he has coveted. Not long after leaving office in 2001, Clinton reportedly told an aide that his dream job would be secretary-general of the United Nations. That's our dream, too.
More below...
The Times goes on to present an excellent argument behind this dream, and I agree; Bill Clinton actually understands and has mastered the art of diplomacy, something not even in the consciousness or vocabulary of our current prez. Of course, this dream is nearly impossible if his wife becomes president and hence the admonishment to her to stay in the Senate. And, as the editors close:
The world need Bill more than the U.S. needs Hillary.
On the opposite page, Jonathan Chait (who often annoys me) writes a piece titled "Clinton's Character Gap", illustrating some of the reasons why HRC is not the best choice for 2008, and why, instead, people should take a good look at Al Gore again:
It appears that the grand Clinton strategy is backfiring. As a prospective national candidate, she has two great vulnerabilities. First, many voters think she's too liberal. Second, many voters also see her as cold, calculating and unlikable.
Her response to this was to position herself in the center... the theory was that her centrist positions would endear her to moderates but that it wouldn't cost her on the left, because years of conservative vilification caused liberals to bond with her emotionally.
*
Moderates fear she remains too culturally divisive to win. And liberals can't stand her centrist positioning. It's the worst of all worlds.
Chait points out Al Gore's rise in popularity in conjunction with the release of "An Inconvenient Truth" - oh, and also highlights this little bit of polling:
A recent straw poll in the liberal blog Daily Kos gave Gore an astonishing 68% of the vote, beating his closest challenger by more than 50 points.
More stuff I love on Gore:
A couple of years ago he appeared to be veering too far left when he denounced the Iraq war and the administration's disregard for civil liberties. But now, almost no one can argue with those positions - certainly not any prospective Democratic voter. And his focus on global warming, which may not rank high on the list of voter concerns in Ohio, points to his genuine conviction on the issue.
And ends with this:
Gore has expressed a reluctance to run, explaining that he lacks much talent or affinity for backslapping and political sound bites. I find his self-awareness admirable. Clinton seems to have even less natural political talent than Gore. Unfortunately she's less aware of her limitations.
Add these to the growing list of reasons why (a) Hillary Clinton should stay in the Senate, and (b) Al Gore should be our next president.