AMERICA'S CHOICE, COME NEXT NOVEMBER.
It is as clear as the sound of a bell.
Iowa caucuses voting has come and gone, and it would be another four years, when political parties would assemble there to repeat the process once again.
This season, it was the Republican Party that needed to pick someone, who would face off against President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election; yet, it still had a long way to go to come up with a favorite choice, since the other primaries, also for the same purpose, were still in the offing.
The campaign operatives on the Democratic Party side have been watching closely the activities that went on, and the speeches that the Iowans, as well as the country, were made to listen to.
They would use that to hone their party's strategies that would counteract those of the president's opponent, whoever that might be in November, close to the end of the year.
Moreover, the world was becoming more and more difficult, as financial problems seem to be hitting hard on European countries like Spain and Italy, to name just a few; and the United States has not been spared from harsh fiscal realities either.
There was also the threat of nuclear weapons for war; and it would be hard to go to bed nowadays without thinking of what the next day would be, if there was going to be one.
For example, Iran's policies in the Arabian Gulf could catapult the world into a conflagration that has not been seen before, as the whole Middle East could be engulfed in active warfare. Yet, as the Gulf, which catered to 25% of the world's oil production became inoperable, so would the economies be jeopardized the world over. In other words, the situation would affect the whole global economy very badly, and would make problems in the U.S. even worse.
Another danger also laid on it (Iran) obtaining a nuclear bomb; and there too, it would not be easy containing other nations from doing the same. Besides that, there were ultra terror groups wanting to have access to nuclear technology; and all that was making everybody nervous, for the path of strife was far and wide open, for a world rapidly becoming a dangerous place.
On the one hand, the Republican candidates have espoused both their domestic and international policies; yet, how they would actually indicate the way they would handle them, with respect to Iran's actions or about nuclear proliferation containment, for example, they could not say.
On the other hand, the Obama administration has so far been able to contain most of the current issues, such as keeping terrorists out, and making seaports and airports safety conscious, as well as manageable, America was safe.
Though, it (America) has had its fiscal problems, it was fighting back to sustain a vibrant economy and reduce high unemployment. Plans for a productive middle class workforce (as the one soon after WW2) were also in progress.
Therefore, it would be better to let sleeping dogs lie, than to bring in a novice, man or woman, who would not know what to do.
That must be the essence underlying the forthcoming general election, for the nation to choose a leader, who has been tested, or someone, whose policies could not be explained or were not clearly defined by the candidate himself or herself.
Meaning that the election should not be for the sake of having a Democrat or a Republican per se, as president in November, 2012. It should be for a leader, who could be elected or, for that matter reelected, to maintain America's friendship abroad, and be able to keep Americans safe in the coming years, in an unpredictable world.
That should be what voters in caucuses and primaries must be contemplating.