To understand whether Kerry will make a better President than GWB, we have to first see what GWB has done so far.
He started out on the "war on terrorism". Did he plan well. I don't think so he provided the leadership to the Pentagon and the others to tell them to plan well. Will Kerry plan better than GWB. I would think so considering that he was Lieutenant in combat and has other credential such as Asstt. DA etc. and a good deal of experience including foreign leaders etc. That is musch more than Bush had before he became President.
Now GWB on the economy. He has never had a good economic team. Started with Mr. O'Neil. That choice in itself was bad considering Mr. O'Neal was a steel executive (Alcoa CEO)and hence not very familiar with the "new economy". Then GWB replaced him with Mr. Snow, a railroad executive, another "old economy" guy. Clinton had Mr. Rubin who commanded tremendous respect in Wall Street. Kerry, has that background and knowledge of the high tech arena, the Harvards, Yales, Wall Street, MITs etc. I can bet that he will not have his economic team headed by someone from the ketchup industry.
I can talk about the economic policy such as jobs, healthcare etc. but again if we see the Democratic party's record on these issues they are what the people want.
That leaves Defense as a differentiator. He has been in combat. Both GWB as well as Clinton did not go to the battlefield. That he went into combat and did not duck it, in itself says that he is ready to go to war if need be. He knows full well what it takes to go to war as well as what it takes to achieve the same objectives without going to war. Of the 3, Clinotn, GWB and Kerry, he is one best suited on the war front. If you like GWB and/or Clinton on the way they have pursued wars, then I do not find any reason to doubt that Kerry will not be better or at least equal their war performance. |
