THE CANDIDATES. . .BUT, BUT, BUT

I have been trying to weigh the options America is facing with the current presidential candidates and am wondering if it would be best just to start all over again. The Democrat choices, Obama and Clinton, have not served themselves well in many of their public (and private) statements. I had thought that any Democrat could win in November, but now I am less sure. Both of them might lose to a septuagenarian.

Clinton and Obama mistakes, exaggerations, and misstatements have been widely reported. As I look at this, here is what I see:

CLINTON: I think she does have experience and has tried to make an impact on policy going back to her days in Arkansas. But somehow the implied impression that being a presidential spouse is preparation for the big job is just too presumptuous. And you combine that with a number of other statements like her description on sniper fire in Bosnia--it is almost as if she is trying too hard to show she can do the job. Where is the line between reality and fantasy? Some reports indicate she has a vindicative streak, but as president the issue is not getting even, but getting something done. This requires negotiation with "enemies." I keep wondering if she will handle this like she did her failed health care plan in the early first administration of her husband. I can't say how much she was involved in this, but certainly she and Bill have used his White House years to make themselves into multi-millionaires. At least Jimmy Carter built some houses for Habitat for Humanity.

OBAMA: He is a great public speaker, but as the African-American founder of BET TV recently said, a white man wouldn't be in this position with his kind of experience. He could turn out to be an excellent president, but there are a lot of risks. He has been compared to Kennedy, but Kennedy's administration was all charisma--his foreign policy failures were many and it also took LBJ to fulfill his domestic program. The times today are just as dangerous. Also some of Obama's foreign policy advisors trouble me and I don't know how you can sit under a pastor without getting some sense of who he is (unless of course he agreed with him, but can't say that now). He is an "elitist," but so is Hillary. With him somehow I don't sense that I have seen into the real "him."

MCCAIN: Boring. . .but he has gone through some tough times which can mature and temper an individual. I don't think age should necessarily be an issue, but it has to be considered. I am watching who he will choose as VP. I like his independent streak and I don't necessarily see him wedded to Bush's Iraq policy, although he is a strong supporter of it. But I am just not sure he gets it on Iraq, but then again do Obama and Hillary?

I like what David Brooks has to say in the NYT.