New Media Alliance - Peter Lemiska

If Senators Clinton or Obama ever feel the need to inject a little excitement into one of their campaign speeches, all they have to do is slam President Bush. It’s a guaranteed crowd-pleaser. Though the audience reaction is infallibly predictable, it is always fascinating to watch them squeal with delight every time they are treated to another attack on the administration.

Alright already, we know. We know that the left despises everything about President Bush and his administration. We’ve known it for some time.

Today, when Democrats listen to their candidates, they might not understand all the ramifications of an unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. But they know they hate Bush.

They may not know how Clinton or Obama would protect our country. But they know they hate Bush.

Considering that Clinton still has not released those records on her years as first lady, and Obama has zero foreign policy experience, even some Democrats are a little uncertain about their qualifications to lead the country. But one thing they all know for sure: they hate Bush.

Their resentment toward the president actually began right after the controversial election of 2000. Then after the invasion of Iraq, followed by relentless unsubstantiated allegations and government conspiracy theories planted by left wing extremists and nurtured by a liberal media, anti-war hysteria took hold, and the resentment grew to a seething hatred.

Blinded by that hatred, they seized on every controversial new policy by the administration to justify their scorn. When the Patriot Act was passed, they said Bush was abusing his authority. They called him a dictator. They pointed at Guantanamo Bay, claiming that he authorized the mistreatment of terrorist prisoners, and that because of it, our country had become an international pariah.

So say the Democrats.

But compare President Bush to his Democratic predecessor.

Following the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center, Bill Clinton treated the attack as a crime, and his justice department eventually convicted a few of the less significant players. While his level of response to subsequent attacks is debatable, it was undeniably ineffective, and terrorism against American interests continued to grow in frequency and ferocity.

With regard to Iraq, Clinton also fully understood that Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN resolutions and a menace to the international community. Yet he chose the safe path, opting to keep him “in his box,” political jargon for “pass the problem on to the next guy.”

So faced with the most devastating attack on American soil in history, President Bush knew that a different approach was needed to defeat terrorism. He didn’t waiver, didn’t put his finger in the wind, but instead launched an all-out war on terrorism, and put the world on notice: “You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.” He knew that as long as hostile states provided safe havens for international criminals, terrorism could never be defeated. Even then, everyone knew which side Iraq was on.

The whole country was behind the president during those days.

For seven years, the Bush Doctrine has helped keep our country safe, yet throughout most of that time his critics continued to condemn his actions. And because there have been no further attacks in this country, the issue of terrorism has taken a back seat to health care, global warming, and government hand-outs. Bush’s approach to the terrorist threat is now called unjustified and extreme, and he is labeled a fear-monger.

Of course, those obsessed with hatred can never allow it to be tainted with reason or objectivity; that could potentially throw their whole belief system into disarray. And the Bush-haters could never acknowledge that this president has had any success in protecting America, because they might then have to temper their contempt with a bit of gratitude.

But in the end, all of the seething hatred is inconsequential. One day, the emotion will fade away, the unsubstantiated allegations will be discarded, and history will judge the president and this war against terrorism based on the simple facts. History will say that George W. Bush took a determined stand against terrorism and terrorist regimes, and while resisting the prevailing political winds at home, he implemented the ancillary policies needed to keep America safe.

Yet there is a ray of hope for those who need to see the Bush Doctrine fail. If either of the two Democratic candidates is elected, he or she can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by rescinding the president’s terrorist surveillance programs and immediately withdrawing our troops from Iraq. If that happens, we will watch the resulting chaos overseas, and brace ourselves for more terrorist attacks here.

And Democrats will somehow see yet another opportunity to blame Bush.

It’s easy to understand why feminists across the country are elated with the prospect of electing the first woman president.

Over the years, women here and throughout the world have achieved enormous success in such diverse fields as politics, business, entertainment, education, and the military. Most would agree, however, that they have not yet achieved parity with their male counterparts. Men still outnumber women in leadership roles, and generally receive higher pay for the same work.

So the women’s rights movement, and women in general, see the election of a female president as the next and greatest milestone on the road to equality.

But is the public at large ready to elect a woman to lead the country?

Over the past few years, polling data on the subject have been inconsistent, but research does suggest that a large number of voters are at least willing to consider it. It is no longer such a stretch of the imagination.

After all, women now serve as elected heads of state in many countries throughout the world, including Chile, Finland, Ireland, and Liberia. Margaret Thatcher served three consecutive and successful terms as British prime minister, and Angela Merkel now serves as the first woman chancellor of Germany.

So now, during this current presidential campaign, the focus is on Hillary Clinton, and while she has clearly established herself as the Democratic frontrunner, two other things are equally clear: she is no Margaret Thatcher, and her road to the Oval Office will not be an easy one.

Her critics oppose her for various reasons. Many see her as calculating and manipulative, turning a blind eye to her husband’s serial abuse of women over the years in the interest of her own political ambitions. Some see her as completely untrustworthy, an absolute master of doublespeak. They question her ethics, reflecting on her involvement in the many scandals that erupted during her husband’s administration, and going back even further, her phenomenally profitable and highly suspicious trading in cattle futures. In fact, to many, she epitomizes everything that is wrong with politics today.

Character issues aside, they also have serious doubts about her resume, which amounts to little more than eight years as a first lady and seven years as a senator, a position she attained largely through her marriage to Bill.

Her strongest opposition, however, comes from conservatives, who believe that her far-left ideologies would bring the country dangerously close to socialism.

For whatever reasons, nearly 50 percent of the voting public have indicated that they will not support this candidate under any circumstances. And with serious doubts about her experience, her leadership, and her character, they can hardly be optimistic about the success of another Clinton presidency.

Of course her supporters reject all of that. But they cannot deny the overwhelming opposition she faces, and like the Bush-haters who have spent the past seven years trying to diminish his presidency, Hillary’s opponents will never accept her as a leader. It is that divisiveness, in fact, that virtually guarantees the failure of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Because she is so polarizing, she could never do what the next president absolutely must do: unite the country.

With the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, a woman in the White House became inevitable. And though the time might be right, this candidate isn’t.

If feminists want the first woman elected to the highest office in the land to be successful, they will be a little more patient. If they want to show the country and the world that a woman can lead the United States just as effectively as a man, they will wait for a truly accomplished, competent, and worthy candidate to emerge from their ranks. They will find someone who can unite the country and leave a legacy they, and the rest of us can be proud of.

And they will tell Hillary, “You go girl! - right back to New York.”