Bill's Bulletin Board
By Bill Rea

The words you are about to read are not meant to be those of an expert, no matter how smart they appear to be. If I'm that good, maybe I should be seeking a job south of the border, working for one of the handful of people who think they can be the next American president.

More than any other time I can recall, this election that our neighbours to the south are embarking on has generated a lot of attention in this country.

My wife and I were attending a social function last Saturday night (yes, I do sort of have a social life), where the upcoming presidential election was one of the many topics that came up for discussion. It was a pretty chatty bunch doing the discussing, too.

The more I think about this campaign, the more unsure I become on who's going to win. I've even taken to turning on CNN in the evenings. I seldom watch that station because I don't think the people there do a particularly good job of reporting the news. But they are talking about presidential politics a lot, which has drawn and is keeping my interest.

I have been interested in the American presidency since before I started high school, for reasons I doubt I could explain. I don't think that makes me an American. I've written many, many times that I'm interested in the papacy, but that doesn't make me a Catholic. That just makes me interested.

I could name you all the American presidents, but don't worry. I could name you all the Canadian prime ministers too. No, I couldn't name you all the popes.

Just to show you how useful my predictions of these things really are, last year, when the presidential wannabees started making their intentions known, I boldly predicted that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson would end up battling it out with former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani to see who the big winner would be. Good thing I didn't put that bit of attempted foresight into print, because both men have sort of disappeared off the political radar. Shows how much I know.

My pick of Richardson was based on a feeling that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were going to rip each other apart trying to nail down their party nomination that someone would be able to slip up the middle. I also based it on the fact that both Clinton and Obama are sitting senators. I don't know why this point isn't made more often, but the United States Senate is not a terribly good place from which to launch a presidential campaign. In the 20th century, only five sitting senators were able to secure party nominations for president, and only to of them won, Warren Harding in 1920 and John F. Kennedy in '60. Interestingly, both men won in years when the incumbent president wasn't seeking re-election, as is the case this year, and ironically, both Harding and Kennedy died after less than three years in office.

I think the reason so few senators get very far in presidential campaigns is the the qualities that make one a good legislator, like the ability to compromise, make deals and engage in give-and-take to get important programs to reality, aren't very attractive to people who are shopping for a strong presidential candidate. The Senate is a pretty good supermarket to visit if one is looking for a running mate, however, as history has shown. A lot of senators have vied for the VP spot, and have eventually obtained the nomination for the to job, and some have actually won.

Governors seem to have a better track record of being elected president, as four of the last five occupants of the office have demonstrated.

But despite my read of the situation, it looks very much like it's going to be either Clinton of Obama running against John McCain, another senator. Another example of just how much I don't know.

Another of my theories that I've developed over the years was the first president who was not a caucasian male was going to be a Republican. I figured such a person, running under the banner of the GOP, would be able to attract a lot more traditional Democrat support than if the situation was reversed. But as one of the chatty people I was socializing with last Saturday night mentioned, Clinton or Obama might also get a lot of people out to vote who might otherwise have considered themselves disenfranchised. That does make some sense.

As for who's going to win, I couldn't tell you.

My prediction at this stage, for what it's worth, is Clinton will probably get the Democratic nomination. I base that on a couple of factors, the main one being she's got a lot more experience. Obama is still a young man and not a terribly seasoned politician. That means he has lots of time to commit rookie mistakes. Clinton's been at or near the top for a lot of years, and she has some of the best spin doctors in the world at her disposal, including people who helped save her husband's hide when he was in office..

On the other hand, the race is close enough to throw my predictions into the bucket.

For the Republicans, it looks like McCain has everything in hand, which may be good or bad for his side. It gives him time to mend any damaged Republican fences that might need fixing. On the other hand, a dramatic contest between Clinton and Obama is sure to attract a lot of interest. If those two and the people backing them have the good sense to end things gracefully when it's over, they might be able to convert that attention to votes.

There's also the factor of McCane's age. He'll be 72 in August, meaning if he wins, he'll be older than Ronald Reagan was when he took office. Now I personally think Reagan was a fine president, but I think it became clear late in his administration that he was having difficulties. Do the American people want to go that route again? Or do they want another Clinton administration?

Is it me, or are American elections more fun that Canadian?