No "God" Please

Michele Bachmann is proud of her beliefs in a Christian God, as opposed to a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a atheist. As an Evangelical Christian, she takes every opportunity to remind people that God exists and that God intervenes in our affairs on a frequent basis. Her recent comment, however, that God moved hurricane Irene to the East Coast to send us a message and rein in our spending was not well received by most Americans. She says it was a joke; but the underlying essence of that comment is frightening, as frightening as George Bush telling us that God had told him to invade Iraq. When politicians start implying that they have a direct link to the Almighty, I start having serious doubts about the future of this country.



It wasn't the first time Mrs. Bachmann mentioned God in a political context; she insisted that God had "told" her to run for the 6th Congressional district and even went fasting for 3 days to "confirm" it.
She won with 50% of the votes thanks to heavy financial support from an evangelical organization run by a Mr. Dobson. Talk about the separation of Church and State, a concept evolved from the
First Amendment of our constitution which prohibits laws that may favor a specific official religion.

Granted, most Americans are Christians who believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. But as a country that respects the right not to believe at all in some supernatural being, and the right to follow any other sect or set of beliefs, no matter how outlandish they may be, we must observe with concern the emergence of politicians who act more as preachers than laymen or laywomen.

What makes America great is precisely its marvelous constitution written by learned and enlightened men (no women alas) who clearly wanted to avoid any of the religious and political pitfalls of European nations. Religions in general are the direct causal factor of millions of victims and hundreds of wars. One can argue that gods do not start conflicts, men do. Indeed, but tell that to Osama (his ghost anyway) or to the mullahs in Iran who ask their faithful brethren to kill the unbelievers.

We must be very careful not to elect candidates who wrap themselves in religious exhortations and who pretend to have a direct communication with the Creator. We lost thousands of soldiers in Iraq and billions of dollars which disappeared in the maws of corruption, thanks to Bush's secret ties with his maker.

We could have done so much if these huge sums of money had been invested in jobs, education, and infrastructure here, in the U.S.

How many teachers could we pay with one budget day spent on Iraq and Afghanistan?

No, Mrs. Bachmann, I doubt very much that you will succeed in your quest for the White House. American citizens tend the shy away from extremists, whether from the right or the left.

WHO WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT?

No, it's not about the 2012 election, when surely a new President will be elected. It is a mere and futile exercise in hindsight regarding the 2008 election. The present thesis asks the following question: "Would Hillary Clinton have made a better president?" The vote was very close; Hillary got within 50,000 votes of Obama when the final numbers were crunched in the Democratic primary. Could she have beaten McCain? Of course, the senator from Arizona lacked the passion and charisma to win the presidency.



We all know and agree that Mrs. Clinton has made an excellent Secretary of State, certainly much better than Madeleine Albright who occupied the post under her husband. She is infinitely better than "Condo" Rice who apparently botched the early warnings of 9/11 made by an FBI agent. A very smart and cultured professor, Rice was simply out of her element at the White House. George Bush III should never have picked her for such a delicate position, when he had at his disposal plenty of experienced and capable candidates. But again, Mr. Bush will not go down in history as an effective President, not even when he saw Putin's soul in the Russian President's eyes (Sarcasm, OK?)

Ever since Mrs. Clinton married Bill when they were both young ambitious lawyers, she has proven to be a driving force behind her husband's success. He is of course a brilliant mind in his own right having won the prestigious Fullbright scholarship. The only question about Bill is his set of values; forget the embarrassing incident with Monica, that does not affect the nation. But one has a right to ask why Bill pardoned a fugitive felon on his last day in office. The answer to that question never came through. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, as we will perhaps never know about other presidential decisions that were not quite ethical.

Hillary was hurt, deeply hurt, by her husband's infidelities; she stood stoically by him anyway, having apparently decided that the good in him far outweighs the bad. She is a tough lady, no doubt about it, though she created some resentment when she criticized Obama very harshly during the primaries in 2008. She reminds me in many ways of another tough lady: Margaret Thatcher of England, who had a successful run as Prime Minister. I feel confident that Mrs. Clinton is equally capable of making critical decisions, even if they eventually affect her reelection chances.

President Obama, on the other hand, has shown time and time again that he hasn't fully assimilated the need to act as the nation's top executive when our welfare is at stake. Except for the bin Laden raid, the current President has shown that he is unwilling to be forceful and decisive when facing opposition.

That is why I believe, in hindsight, that Hillary Clinton would have made a much better President.