Hot Springs, it turns out, is one big National Park. I thoroughly enjoyed touring it, and then seeing the Bill Clinton Presidential Library and Museum. So while Obama was in the news, I was reading all the history and background on Hillary Rodham Clinton. I must say she’s much more credible to me as a candidate now that I’ve read more of her background.

It was a lot of pretty propaganda for Bill and Hillary, but I was still impressed. You probably already knew this, but I found out she was President of the Young Republicans at Wellesley in her early college years and served as a congressional intern for several moderate Republicans in Congress. I saw her Sunday School records and New Testament from her Methodist Church growing up too. The museum actually made me proud to be a Democrat.

Incidentally, there was no mention of a “blue dress.” The Lewinsky affair was dealt with in the museum by Bill’s final admission of wrongdoing, but the whole impeachment matter was painted (and I agree with the paint color) as a radical right wing attack and as partisan and silly — not to mention incorrect as a matter of constitutional significance. I thought overall it was dealt with well and the history was accurate (although slanted in favor of the Clintons).

In any event, I must say after visiting the museum, I’ve caught a glimpse of actually visualizing Hillary as President. I’m not sure Obama has anywhere near the experience to handle the office just yet. Yes, he did give a great speech — how could anyone not like it? It patrticularly strikes a chord of fairness and equality and hope and unity in the references to Lincoln — founder of the Republican Party. (Interesting, isn’t it, that the Repubs invoke Jefferson, FDR and JFK and, we Dems invoke Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln and Reagan. These cross-over invocations are loaded with political punch.)

Anyway, yes, he had a good speech; yes, he’s “attractive” (appearance-wise), but does he really have depth? His voting record in Illinois legislature is going to be the bane of his run for “centrist” Dems. He has, I read somewhere, some pretty hard left votes on abortion issues, etc.

Hillary looks a little more centrist than Obama, in my estimation of the middle. Obama is hard-nosed on withdrawing from Iraq. Hillary is a little more where I am, inasmuch as she wants a timetable to withdraw (but it may not necessarily be next year as we can’t leave Iraq in a lurch), disapproves Bush’s troop surge and hasn’t completely come down as hard on the war. Ideologically, I’m probably closer to her than to him. I must say, however, he appears to be a force to be reckoned with.

Then there’s Gov. Richardson of New Mexico. I like him (I think), but don’t know if he has a decent chance. And I’m not sure about Edwards either. He’s populist, but I’m not sure he has enough experience either…Well, I don’t want to come out favoring anyone yet. Too early, but the country is finally moving back leftwards (I believe) and the most centrist candidate, with the least “baggage,” is likely to win.

Looks like the Repubs are moving away from McCain and towards Guiliani. That may bode well for the Demo candidate, whoever s/he may be. I still sense Hillary carries a lot of “baggage” in the South, but Guiliani may carry even more, so she may have a shot against McCain. However, I’m still afraid she’ll lose. As to the other Dem candidates, I don’t yet have a sense of how the Dem candidate may fare against the likely Repub candidate. That’s why I guess we’re in for a long-term campaign season…It’s certainly going to be interesting.

I wish many of our Christian brethren/sisters would leave the realm of trying to marry religious beliefs to a particular political persuasion. Paradoxical as it may seem, Christianity does not need politics to be furthered. Well-meaning Christians often think it does. Christians who try to package God up and peddle Him to others as though He is as simple to comprehend as a political viewpoint may essentially be pushing a modern form of idolatry.

Fellow Christians have become drunken with ‘victory’ at the polls, instead of the victory at the cross. But we as Christians don’t have to be “victorious” in stuffing our religion down others’ throats by being elected and telling others how they’ve got it all wrong. That only turns people off to your religion and political party in the long run.

A real change in a person’s life through Christ does not happen overnight, but over a lifetime through God’s inner workings and not legal impositions. God works with each individual over time in His own way. For this reason, we Christians must resist the temptation to “save” the country from the evil and ‘unrighteousness’ that exists in this world by a stroke of the legal pen or the vote of a citizen or Member of Congress.

We must change our thinking: God is not restricted in working only through politicians or political parties. God is not so small.

If God wants us to know something as Christians and to act on our beliefs across all of society, I am convinced He will lead us. We each must approach the matter very openly and dialogue with each other about the best course of action. We must listen to each other, and not think too highly of ourselves, but consider all sides of the issues of our day. Jesus would do no less, and if He would so act, then we, His followers, should surely do likewise.

The danger of a blurring of the lines between separation of church and state is that the simple religious message gets lost in politics. We must preserve the sanctity of both by keeping them from polluting each other.

I sometimes have gotten discouraged during the past six years that the voice of Christian reason and moderation has been lost. I sincerely hope that the pendulum has begun to swing back to the center after this past fall’s elections.

I don’t want the pendulum to swing too far back left though. I believe the center is where we should be as a country…and I just remind myself that we wouldn’t know where the “center” is, if we didn’t have swings between the right and left periodically. That is just the history of things, and it is no different now.

We are first and foremost members of the Democratic Party. But, we are a breed of Democrats who refuse to be defined by the other party, by the media, or by the candidates.

We shun labels such as “liberal” or “conservative,” not because we do not embrace those who lean those ways, but because we find such labels to be meaningless.

We insist on defining ourselves.

We do not call ourselves “centrist” for the sake of congratulating ourselves for representing “the middle” or “the center.”

Rather, we define ourselves by what we choose to do, and in so doing, provide real meaning to the term “centrist.” We choose to listen respectfully to other views, both “left” and “right,” and to remain persuadable to the best reasoning and soundest logic on whatever the current political discourse may be.

In short, we believe in a middle way in American politics today.

If you do, too, please join us in getting this movement off the ground. Browse around our site, and please take our short quiz to contribute your ideas!