Rusted Sky

When looking for a needed tool, there's certain qualities you're looking for. First, the tool has to be appropriate for the job. You're not going to be getting a screwdriver when you're really needing a hammer. Yes, you can use a screwdriver handle as a hammer if need be, but you can't use a hammer as a screwdriver. At least, not expecting to remove the screw...

You expect certain qualities regarding the design of the tool. The material has to be sturdy enough to meet anticipated usage. If you're getting a hammer and chisel, you're going to want both tough enough to do the job, the striking parts forged and tempered so they're hard enough to cut and do the job, but not so hard that metal will shatter upon impact. A chisel that's too soft is useless - it won't keep an edge. A hammer that's too hard will chip and send metal fragments flying. A circular saw blade that sheds teeth is both hazardous and useless. A screwdriver that doesn't fit won't perform properly - it ends up ruining the heads of the screws.

There is no 'one-size-fits-all' tool.

And in politics - there's no 'one-size-fits-all' candidate. Each one brings different things to the table, hoping to get enough people to think he/she is the best to get the job. There are some, however...

Kucinich... well, he's a flat-head screwdriver in a Torx world.

Obama? A power drill, looking for a generator.

McCain? 550 cord. Very useful in certain applications - but useless other than tying things together.

Hillary? A badly tempered chisel, ready to chip when she meets resistance.

A President needs strength to hold the country together, and deal with other nations.

He needs the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. One criticism of Bush I've heard is that pre 9/11, he was adamantly against nation-building, and he changed his mind! I don't want a President who's so locked onto a course of action he simply will not change it when circumstances warrant - I want one that will understand when flexibility is called for as well as rigidity... and will also be able to balance the two.

Toughness... is related to strength, but also to endurance and integrity. The Presidency is arguably one of the toughest jobs in the world, and it's going to be a killer for whoever gets it.

Those are baseline qualities. The final quality in the title - brittleness - is one that I most definitely don't want to see in a Presidential candidate. Everyone is brittle to some extent - you hit the right amount of stress, and you crack. Training, time and experience can damp that down - temper you to a point where you'll bend instead of break - and our political process provides that tempering and experience... where the politician is willing to learn.

But Hillary... isn't a politician. She's been a politicial spouse, and been pretty well heated up as First Lady - but simply heating the edge of a chisel doesn't harden it to a useful temper - the process is a bit more complex than that. There's a need for a period of give-and-take, of learning how to compromise and an understanding that just because YOU think something's the greatest idea since the New Deal, others may not and YOU might have to modify your plans to take care of their objections. If you don't please the constiuency, they'll find someone else in the next election. But Hillary didn't go through that. Bill did - and he learned the lessons well. But if you lack that 'training', you can end up hard and brittle.

Unfortunately, Hillary's brittleness is exceedingly noticeable. Hardness is one thing - the edge of a katana is very hard - but that hardness has to have a tough and resilient core backing it, or the first time it hits something remotely tough (which the media has decidedly tried to prevent with their careful stacking of the deck in these preliminary Q&A sessions) it'll quickly become useless.

The media's done this country no favors by anointing Hillary as the Dem front-runner. They're not looking at the big picture - that the COUNTRY is more important than Party, and the ideas pushed by the Democrats aren't necessarily good ones simply because the Democrats are desiring their implementation. (Same thing for Republicans - either side.)

If the idea is a good one, a functional one, one that truely benefits the country, then it'll stand examination and discussion - even dissention. But one thing that's been pretty evident on the left is that discussion of the actual merits of any proposed idea is pretty well discouraged on ideological grounds. If it's from the left, it doesn't need discussion, it's automatically good and wonderful. If it's from the right, then no discussion is needed because it's horrid and evil and really, really bad. (Case in point - Dems said in the Clinton era that Social Security needed revamping. As soon as Bush was in, there wasn't any way in hell they'd even discuss the idea.)

IF Hillary gets elected - what's going to happen the first time that she doesn't get her way? Or the second? What's going to happen to her when she realizes that being President is NOT the same as being Queen? Not every world leader will kneel and cooperate with her, and if she continues her antagonistic way of dealing with Republicans... well, the Dems have shown the way to complete legislative gridlock and the Republicans only have to emulate it - simply refuse to consider passing anything the Democrats put forth. Tit for tat sucks - but it works.

The Democrats have shown their way to the future. Let's hope the future they desire so strongly isn't the one that actually happens. By law, on every tool sold, there has to be safety information. On hammers and chisels, it's warning information suggesting the tool be examined before use, and not used if there are cracks or chips in the striking surfaces...

God knows there's enough chipped psyches in Washington. When struck just right - well, we've seen what happens when they shatter. If only our politicians could Magnafluxed and stress-tested before getting into office. We need tools that can do the job, and make the job easier. Sadly, what we usually seem to end up with after the shine's rubbed off are bargain-basement rejects... weak, brittle, and the wrong shape.

Occasionally, however, a tool that seems wrong for the job ends up performing much better than thought - even though at the time it was reviled. Lincoln comes to mind, and Churchill. Kennedy is remembered better for what might have been than what actually was - and Reagan managed to do incredible things while handicapped with a Democratic Congress. Historians will judge Bush - and it's my belief that his suitability and performance in office, when viewed dispassionately, will show him to have been the right tool at the time.

Of course, tool DOES have different meanings to different people...

J.

(Closed due to spam. Sorry.)