Rick Perry

The 61 year-old Rick Perry is at the perfect age to launch a bid for the White House. He sees himself as the new Ronald Reagan heir serving the country as Commander-in-Chief and retiring at the feisty age of 70. Who could ask for better timing? There are of course a few obstacles he must overcome before fulfilling his dream: Winning the Republican primary and defeating Barack Obama. Can he do it? Does he have what it takes to emulate his predecessor in the governorship of Texas? Perry is after all the longest serving governor in Longhorn territory, a fact that speaks well of his ability to raise funds and control the political world in his native state.

When he defeated Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2010, who by the way was supported by the George Bush family, he sent a clear message to the Republican Party that he was a political force to be reckoned with. He probably strengthened the idea at that time that he had a shot at the Presidency.

 Rick Perry as an Air Force Captain

In 1988, as a democrat who chaired Al Gore's presidential bid in Texas, Rick Perry, at that time, wasn't going to get a Christmas card from the Bush family. However, he later became Lieutenant Governor of Texas as a Republican in 1998, serving under George Bush II and taking over the position after the 2000 infamous elections. Talk about good timing!

Perry has the right credentials as a candidate for the highest position in the land of Lincoln. Honorable military service, Christian Evangelical in good standing, long experience in an executive position, no known scandals, sexual or otherwise, presidential looks (unlike George W.), an attractive figure for female voters, and a relatively good public speaker. He doesn't have the charisma of a Ronald Reagan, or the intellect of a Barack Obama, but he compensates these factors with unparalleled ambition and energy.

Perry initiated his campaign by dropping political bombs to shock the electorate into paying attention to his candidacy. Unlike the suave and polished Mitt Romney, who was content with remaining above the fray as befits a veteran of presidential runs, the Texas governor quickly accused Obama's monetary policy of being "almost treasonous" (excessive printing of money) and soon thereafter presented his new proposal to amend the constitution, or rather to eliminate some amendments. He clearly wants to remain on the front page with controversial statements, though these tactics may well backfire on him. His remarks about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme will endear him to older voters, a fact that he quickly sought to clarify without much success.

Controversy and close vetting are an essential part of any political campaign; as they say in my native country: "If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

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.