Draft Laura! Time to Go Mano-A-Mano On the Clintonista!
Sometimes the great ideas are so obvious, you can't see them. Martin @ MVRWC has an Interesting thought
"At what point will a Clinton candidacy prompt the following question of Laura Bush 'Do you feel qualified to run for President, after eight years as First Lady?'"
He answers his own question with:
What would be the reaction if she said "being First Lady doesn't qualify you to be President"?
Which, to my mind, would be exactly the wrong answer.
Instead, Laura Bush should answer, "My current experience, to judge from those supporting Mrs. Clinton, is exactly the experience one needs. As a result I am announcing today that I am a candidate for President of the United States."
That small still answer, in that soft and careful voice that is one of the hallmarks of Mrs. Bush, would be the very thing this current election needs.
After all, if being the First Lady is the sort of thing that brings you valuable experience, then Mrs. Bush's experience is not only more current, it is the experience of a war-time First Lady. It is an experience much more up to date than somebody who's been just dunking around as a general do-little Senator for the last six years. Electing Mrs. Bush would not only keep the continuity of government and the tax cuts in place, it would save lots of money in redecoration of the White House as well.
Other benefits would obviously accrue from Mrs. Bush's current position. She could name a running mate... someone like, say, Rudy, as well as announcing that Fred Thompson would become Secretary of the Interior and that Ron Paul would not be getting anywhere near the Treasury.
Her other qualifications are, for starters, that she is indeed a woman, but one that most Americans actually like. I don't know what Mrs. Bush's current negatives are, but I'd bet that once you factored out her husband they'd be pretty close to zero.
Another qualification, since we are dealing pretty much in superficial and shallow things at the moment, is that she is actually a much more attractive woman than Hillary by any measure. I mean, as First Ladies go, we're talking "babe" here. As First Ladies go she is also, beyond doubt, a kinder and gentler one as well. Add to that the facts that 1) her voice does not, unlike Hillary's, cause puppies to bleed from the ears, and 2) her laugh is actually sincere.
As a former teacher, we can look towards an administration with education on the front burner. We can also look to a toning down of the gay marriage issue -- "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue... a lot of sensitivity." She's on record as wanting to appoint another woman to the Supreme Court. She's a friend of Israel. She's a former librarian so she'll be well-read and organized. Having survived the unprecedented hatred poured out against her husband with her reputation intact, she's nobody's fool. She's travelled the world and spoken up for the rights of women and children and the poor and the oppressed... even in the heart of the Middle East. She knew what was at stake on 9/11 and did her part to reassure and rally America.
Given her track record of doing pretty much nothing but good works for the last eight years, I'd say that Laura Bush is much, much more qualified to be President than any other First Lady in recent memory.
I mean, except for her husband, what's not to like about this candidate. That "other woman" has plenty of husband baggage as well. Seems to me that if Hillary is "electable," than Laura is as well. In fact, much more so. She is now, and always has been, a winner.
The only problem is that, as a commenter has pointed out, Laura Bush, unlike Hillary Clinton, may just have too much class to run.
americandigest.org |
