I don't actually think Senator Hillary Clinton will be our next president. I don't even think she will get the Democratic nomination for president. But, let's speculate on what a White House with former President Bill Clinton might look like as he calls it as First Laddie.
Since the Clintons seems to compare themselves these days to Franklin and Eleanor perhaps the former president could be the eyes and ears for the president and travel around the country and the world and come back and report to her what is happening with his brilliant political instincts.
However, if I am not mistaken the Democrats took over Congress last year with their pledges to end American involvement in Iraq sooner than later. Now, we have the incredible comments of the three leading Democratic presidential candidates saying they might not have U.S. troops out of Iraq by the END of their first term as president.
As Senator Clinton said to Tim Russert in the latest debate in New Hampshire, "Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all the troops out by the end of my first term." And, Obama and Edwards comments were along the same line.
Senator Obama stated, "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible." And John Edwards commented to the question posed by Russert "Will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?" "I cannot make that commitment."
Voters elected Democrats to Congress last year with the belief the war would be shortened. The dominant issue this year in the presidential campaign is Iraq and yet the three leading Democratic presidential candidates cannot even make a pledge to have American troops out at the END of their first term. This is not acceptable.
If we think there is dissension in the land today with the war, what will be the mood if we still have American troops in combat in Iraq in 2013? How can the Democratic primary voters let these leading candidates get away with this type of talk? It is unbelievable that they cannot say that ending American involvement in Iraq would be the main reason for people voting for them as our next president.
That brings us back to Hillary's not so secret weapon -- the former president. He came very close to brokering a Middle East deal in his final days as president. He is an excellent talker and he has the experience in foreign policy in the Middle East.
It would certainly give Senator Clinton the edge in the debate on the war in Iraq to say that the first thing she would do as president would be to name her husband as special envoy for ending American involvement in Iraq within the first ten months of her presidency.
This would be the perfect position for the First Laddie. Not only did he get close to a deal on the Middle East but he was successful in the Balkans in securing a peace that has mostly worked out.
One of the leading Democratic presidential candidates has to realize the mood of the country especially among likely Democratic primary voters. They want American involvement in Iraq to end soon and not in 2013. They want a leader who will say he or she has a plan. Senator Biden has a plan but he is not rising in the polls. Democratic voters should start listening to his plan.
Let's see Hillary, Obama and Edwards take a stand and a commitment to end American combat roles in Iraq ...and before 2013. The country and especially Democratic primary voters won't stand for this type of talk. The country by a majority has turned against this war and wants a straight talking strong presidential candidate to say how he or she will end it very soon and not four or five years from now.
Senator Clinton, put your husband's negotiating skills to work and make a commitment to appoint him special envoy to end U.S. involvement in Iraq within ten months of your taking office.