Backing the right horse

Checks and balances mean everything to me in the world of politics. I think our government works much better when the president and congress differ in their ruling parties. George W. Bush would have been a better president (marginally better) if Democrats had controlled congress forcing compromises and keeping the spectre of imperial presidencies in check.

I've said it before but it bears repeating. President Clinton became a better president when he lost the Democratic majority in congress. In fact, aside from his personal failings, I think he became a great president who will probably rate fairly high in the current pantheon.

Which leads me to my angst over the upcoming presidential contest. If the Democratic majority holds in 2008 (and chances are currently good that it will) then by the logic above I should lean toward the Republican standard-bearer (or a third-party candidate if one can emerge from the pack) but I am loath to do that after the disasterous 6 years of GW and 12 years of Republican majority rule in Congress.

Adding to my angst is the ever growing shadow of Hillary Clinton that looms over the Democrats. I personally feel that Hillary is not electable. If you thought Ralph Nader sucked the air out of the room in 2000, you ain't seen nothing yet. If Hillary is the nominee I predict that the Democrats will lose the general election.

And so I wait, on pins and needles as the campaign for 2008 taxis down the runway. I hope in my heart of hearts that Hillary falters early either through her own actions or the early primary voting results. I actually hope fo a Gore announcement if that happens.

There is so much more to the election than just backing the right horse but for my money I want the race to include a different set of mares and steeds. And they're off....