America needs a leader -- not another politician

By Peter Lemiska

We Americans have become pretty cynical about politics and most recognize that politicians have one overriding goal: to get votes and win elections. And they do that by giving voters what they want, or at least telling them what they want to hear, even if it means distorting the truth or reversing a position now and then. After all, a clever politician can always explain away any apparent contradictions. They spin, obfuscate, and sometimes just plain lie to pull in as many votes as they can. They know that if they appeal to enough voters, they don't need a vision for the future.

But don't we want our elected officials to be more than just skilled politicians? Shouldn't we expect them to have that vision? Shouldn't we expect them to be leaders?

Time and again we've seen that political acumen does not necessarily equate to leadership. The tools often used to garner votes: obfuscation, triangulation, and manipulation, are often at odds with the traditional hallmarks of leadership: character, commitment, and courage.

To say that Hillary Clinton is a good politician would be an understatement. She is the quintessential politician. And though both supporters and critics have always understood that, recent events have exposed her true nature to a much wider audience.

Politicians count on campaign contributions to get their message out. But character issues are raised when candidates accept large contributions from shady donors. When Norman Hsu's relationship with Hillary Clinton surfaced, it was eerily reminiscent of corrupt Asian donors in another Clinton campaign. And in this case, as in the past, Senator Clinton wasted no time inoculating herself from any culpability with that same old dependable excuse borrowed from Sergeant Schultz, of Hogan's Heroes. She knew nothing. Her staff was entirely responsible. It was her staff that failed to properly screen her donors.

Does anyone believe for a second that both her staff and the security professionals around her failed to screen a political groupie and high-profile donor like Hsu? Or that after learning of his background, would have failed to caution the senator? We can only conclude that Hsu's contributions were more important to Hillary than his criminal record.

Then there was the debate. Not the one in Las Vegas, where she denied playing the gender card immediately before telling us about the 93-year old woman who only wanted to live long enough to see a woman in the White House. I'm talking about the debate in Philadelphia.

Asked about NY Governor Spitzer's proposal to provide drivers licenses to illegal aliens, Clinton predictably tried to have it both ways. First she gave all indications that she wholeheartedly supported the idea, and then immediately back-peddled when challenged by Senator Dodd. In the end, even fellow-Democrats were confused on her stance. Of course, buckling under pressure, Spitzer has since withdrawn the plan, and consequently, Hillary too, now knows precisely where she stands.

This lack of commitment has been a hallmark of her campaign, beginning with her on-again, off-again support of the Iraq war. In fact, it's becoming more apparent every day that the only thing to which she is truly committed is occupying the oval office.

A political science professor recently suggested that Hillary's greatest weakness may be gullibility, pointing to her acceptance of her husband's denials in the Monica Lewinsky affair, as well as President Bush's justification for the Iraq war. But most believe she was never fooled for a minute by her husband and that she shifted her position on the Iraq war out of political expediency. They see her, not as gullible, but as calculating and manipulative. In either case, it's not representative of leadership.

Finally, let's not forget those planted questions in her so-called open forums. Again, Mrs. Clinton denied any involvement, shifting blame to some hapless staff member. Only her staunchest supporters are buying that explanation. The rest of us have some difficulty believing that Clinton was not directly involved, that some nameless subordinate risked planting a question that Hillary was not prepared to answer. In fact, it would require a willing suspension of disbelief.

Her underhanded techniques and her outrageous denials certainly damage her credibility, but more than that, this compulsion to shirk responsibility and blame everyone else is not what we expect from a leader.

We are facing some perilous times. The next president will have to deal with terrorism, Iraq, Iran, Korea, Pakistan, and other looming threats from abroad, as well as complex domestic issues. Gender is not the issue. Leadership is.

It's easy to see why Clinton is the Democratic front-runner. As a politician she has a lot going for her. She's honed her political skills to a fine point. She has her gender, name recognition, polished presentations, rapport with her audiences, and of course that infectious cackle. She has everything necessary to be a successful politician.

Unfortunately, and with apologies to that 93-year old lady, Hillary Clinton comes up short as a leader...way short.

© Peter Lemiska