DISCLAIMER 1: There are two years to go and these are slow news days; this is basically for fun

DISCLAIMER 2: I’m from Colombia, so this is an outsider’s perspective. I follow US politics closely because electoral results over there, in many ways, impact my country more than results over here. Somos provincia del imperio.
THE CASE FOR JOHN EDWARDS
There are three top contenders for the democratic presidential nomination: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Of the three, only one candidate has proposed a clear, coherent and progressive vision for the United States and the world.

Hillary Clinton is a very able politician and she has a fairly progressive voting record, but she has never taken a strong stand against 21st century american fascism. Her stance on the Iraq war varies from vague to wrong, and cannot be woven into a coherent vision.

Barack Obama speaks as if he had a vision, but often this vision consists of nothing more than platitudes and truisms.  His courting of the religious right, his criticism of fellow democrats, his “bipartisanship” and his tacit support of Lieberman in Connecticut belie that he does not understand that radical ideologues with a desire for complete power are taking over the country. Such people cannot be negotiated with, nor common ground be found. He is an inmensely intelligent man, who is actually right about many things, but he needs to mature a little bit.

John Edwards has, in my mind, two major blemishes. His vote for the Iraq War resolution and his 04 presidential candidacy. The first showed either cynicicsm, lack of judgement or both, the second showed excessive ambition. However, his vision for his campaign, the country and the world is powerful, coherent and clear.

John Edwards is inviting all citizens to make a change for the better. He is espousing honesty and forthrightness as a way to both campaign and address policy. He is re-assessing the role of the US in the world, saying that it can only lead if it regains the moral authority to do so.

This all fits into a single theme, one that has a place even for admitting his IWR was a mistake, and for apologizing for it. The theme is responsability: the responsability of every citizen to make his country better, the responsability of politicians to acknowledge and correct their mistakes, the responsability of the US as the world’s only superpower. Perhaps, with John Edwards the US will embrace the Spiderman principle on the world stage: “With great power comes great responsability”.

Not only is John Edward’s vision honest and clear, it is also dead on. The US cannot afford to be selfish or petty; the only way for it to survive is to become altruisitc.

THE CASE FOR BILL RICHARDSON
John Edwards has two major failings as a presidential candidate: lack of experience and, specifically, lack of foreign policy chops. The latter will be quite important in 08 and beyond, because the fire that George Bush started in the middle east will be far, far from extinguished.

Two people come to mind as possible VP candidates for Edwards who have experience and accomplishments on the world stage: Bill Richardson and Wesley Clark. They would both make great VPs for Edwards, but Bill Richardson has more experience and is a smarter choice electorally (and leaves Wesley Clark free to become secretary of defense).

Bill Richardson’s resumé is nothing short of impressive:

Staff member for the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee
Congressman from New México 03 for fourteen years, where he worked extensively in the field of foreign relations. He negotiated face to face with Saddam Hussein and secured the release of two US aerospace workers. As governor, he has also talked to delegates from North Korea on the subject of nuclear energy.
US ambassador to the United Nations
US Secretary of Energy
Governor of New Mexico.
Chairman of the democratic governors association
Chairman of the 2004 democratic convention.

Bill Richardson’s enormous experience and diplomatic ability would surely make an Edwards/Richardson ticket credible on experience and foreign policy.

Electorally, Richardson would virtually ensure the presence of New Mexico and Nevada in the blue column, and would be helpful in sothwestern states and states with a large latino population: Arizona, Colorado, Florida.

It may seem trivial to non-spanish speakers in the US, but Richardson’s command of spanish is important electorally. For spanish speakers, it was positively jarring to hear the tortured spanish of both George Bush and John Kerry during the 04 campaign. It seemed fake and pandering. That a candidate could speak to latinos in their properly pronounced mother toungue would be refreshing. Even though most latinos in Florida are not mexican, the fact that Bill Richardson could speak to them in good spanish would endear him to cubanos and other latinos there.

So anyway, that’s my two cents on the matter of presidential primaries. I’d love to hear what you think…