Iowa 2008: And they are off.

Yesterday I discussed the upcoming US elections over a family dinner with my family and a long time family friend. The general consensus was the Republicans could be headed for a brokered convention. This happens only when no candidate manages to secure a majority of the delegates going into the convention. Hypothetically Huckabee wins Iowa, Romney takes New Hampshire and McCain is victorious in South Carolina, this leaves national candidates like Rudi Giuliani and Fred Thompson with a shot at the nomination and further their Republican appeal (in contrast to the Conservative appeal). The Republican race as it currently stands is a free throw.

It is the Democratic race that we argued over. My parents and the friend believe that Hillary Clinton will carry the nomination. I want Barack as the nominee. Here is an incredibly appealing story of an American dream. A young African American man of humble origins attends Harvard Law School, comes out to run for Illinois state senate and wins. Two years ago, the state Democrats encourages him to run for US Senate and wins again. That was on the premise of his opposition to the War in Iraq and for getting it right the first time round, unlike Hillary. It is an amazing political rise from state senator to US senator practically overnight. How can anyone not support this fellow?

Frankly, I am sick of this White House duopoly between the George Bushes (41st President George H W Bush and 43rd President George W Bush) and the Clintons. More importantly, Hillary represents the Washington establishment and insider as well as the status quo. Former President Bill Clinton said on Charlie Rose on a couple of weeks ago that America should elect the person that is the best agent of change and not the best symbol of change. Bill was right, Hillary represents change and is the best agent for change as in what happens when a new party comes into power, but she is not the best agent of change as in reform. I agree that we should choose the best agent, but Hillary has been in Washington far too long to be the best agent for change. She has spent the better part of the last 20 years in Washington - First Lady in the White House in the 90s, then US Senator on Capitol Hill this decade. Sadly, she spent the better part of last year and will spend a better part of this year on the campaign trail wowing voters instead of doing Senate business, but so has every other Senator wanting to be the next President of the United States.

As one British Conservative Member of Parliament so famously hurled a line from Oliver Cromwell to the Long Parliament in 1655 at his own Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, in 1940, Cromwell said, "You have sat here too long for any good you have doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, Go!" I say the same to Hillary.

The Democratic primary this year resembles the 1960 election. Hillary is Lyndon Johnson and Barack is John Kennedy. Like Johnson, Hillary is running on her experience. She claims she does not need on the job training. She claims this is not the time for a new hand on deck. Like Kennedy, Barack has spent very little time in Washington. He is young, charismatic and has a young family to complete the perfect picture of youth. Unlike Kennedy, Barack represents the American dream to the letter. He can be to the Democrats what former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell was to the Republicans. Barack is the best symbol AND agent for change as in reform. He is not interested in being the old New Democrat like Hillary.

Yes, Hillary has the experience, but she has one big problem that no other Democratic candidate has, that is her name alone sparks the wrath of the Republican Party. If the Democrats nominate her, every Republican will unite under the banner of whoever becomes the Republican nominee. If the Democrats nominate Barack, John Edwards or any other candidate, chances are pretty good that the social values voters, or the religious right, may bolt and put forward their own candidate. Thereby splitting the Republican vote and giving the Democrats a clear shot to the White House.

It is worth remembering that in recent world history only two women among a few have enjoyed any substantial success as national leader, namely Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir. Yes, there have been other female leaders of countries like the late Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Mary Robinson of Ireland, Kim Campbell of Canada, Catherine the Great of Russia. Sadly, none of these women enjoyed any success in a democracy, except Robinson as President of Ireland (but the Irish Presidency is an appointed position and not a popularly elected one). Yet, in the process of winning their Party's leadership and their country's premiership, Thatcher and Meir have shed a good portion of their feminity. In fact, both women and Catherine the Great of Russia are known for being something of an Iron Lady. Thatcher and Meir for sure had the nickname of Iron Lady. Catherine of the Great certainly has the necessary reputation to secure that nickname. Hillary, I am sorry to say, has none of it.

The truth is many of America's greatest presidents entered office with little national and, in some cases, no international experience. Franklin Roosevelt, Reagan and Clinton had no foreign policy experience before coming into the Oval Office. Roosevelt entered the White House in the midst of the Great Depression with a world in chaos. Yet, it is not too modest to say that Roosevelt saved Western civilization and the British necks from the clutches of Nazism. Most historians will not argue that Roosevelt is one of the three greatest presidents along with George Washington and Abe Lincoln. For her to accuse Barack of needing on the job training is outrageous, Bill Clinton needed on the job training as well or is she prepared to prove that Bill has the necessary foreign policy and National Security background to serve as President before becoming President.