Hillary Clinton is now officially my presidential candidate. Though she is not my ideal candidate for President, frankly it is rare that “my ideal candidate” even runs for any office, let alone wins it. I thought long and hard about the Democratic choices still available for me to support for 2008, and after doing so I choose Hillary over any of them. I was greatly disappointed when Wes Clark did not run, I was greatly disappointed when Al Gore did not run, and I was disappointed that Russ Feingold didn’t run either.
None of those men still have a chance to become President in 2008 but Hillary Clinton does. My first team didn’t take the field this season but Hillary Clinton did. I believe she will run an excellent campaign against the Republicans if she becomes the Democrats nominee, and I think Hillary Clinton will make a good President for America when she takes office in January 2009. I do not hesitate to support her for President.
Of my other options only Joe Biden tempted me by having the skills, qualifications and judgment needed to be elected President in 2008, coupled with enough of an electoral pulse to keep from going D.O.A. before a single primary vote got cast. I don’t see an opening available for him though and I expect Biden’s run will shortly enter history as a footnote to 2008, similar to Senator Bob Graham’s role in 2004.
I think Bill Clinton was correct when he said this; Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd are ready to be President now, and so is Hillary Clinton. For the moment at least, of these only Hillary’s chances seem realistic. While I hoped to have a viable seasoned progressive who actually stood against the IWR to support in this race for President, it was not to be. Instead I am supporting a liberal, brilliant, extremely knowledgeable and hard working woman for President.
I’ve already faced it. Politically I am far further left than Hillary Clinton. I’m also far further left than most American voters, so this isn’t the first Presidential election where I find myself in this position. If ever I flirted with going third Party in a close Presidential election; 2000 cured me of that notion. I am not writing this blog to make the decisive case for Hillary Clinton, but I am writing to go on record about who I support for President and why.
All of the arguments have been raised by now for and against all of the Democrats running; it is mostly just a matter of what you believe. I can’t do more than give a brief personal check list here so and I won’t even try to anticipate and rebuff all the contrary arguments. Obviously many see all or part of this differently. They likely will make a different choice than I then.
I simply won’t consider Dennis Kucinich for President when voters in his home state don’t take him seriously enough to consider him a favorite son, and his grassroots activist base can’t even raise the money Kucinich needs to field a modest campaign in Iowa. I might have supported Chris Dodd for President had I ever got the feeling that more than 2% of the public could join me in doing so, while Bill Richardson has demonstrated an uncanny ability to uninspire people who started out inspired to support him. Perhaps I could support Richardson or Biden if one of them was actually viable, but I still wouldn’t feel compelled to. There is nothing about either one of them on whole that makes them preferable to Hillary Clinton for me. Though Biden has a lot going for him, I would rather elect America’s first woman President, just for starters.
As for John Edwards, I won’t consider him in the primaries when his entire political career consists of one term in the U.S. Senate, half of that spent running for President, leaving Edwards with a paper thin record of real political accomplishments much of which he now runs against himself. Someone else with John Edward’s current positions may be electable in America today, but if a real attack machine ever starts up against Edwards his bi-polar moderate sudden morph to progressive political persona will make him a sitting duck. And since he accepted Federal Matching funds and will be tapped out by the primaries, make that a near defenseless sitting duck between mid March and the Democratic National Convention. I question John Edward’s past judgment, I am unimpressed by his record, and I can’t ignore his inconsistencies. So I challenge his claim of electability also.
Which brings me to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two perceived national front runners. Both are fascinating politicians who, if elected President, would shatter a glass ceiling that silently discriminated against millions of Americans for centuries. In either case that counts for something, and to me either counts for a lot.
They draw their appeal from different roots. Hillary Clinton, a prior inhabitant of the White House, draws strength from the recent past - before the calamity of George W. Bush’s two term presidency descended on America. She represents Democratic continuity as heir to the high point of power achieved by Democrats in several decades. While Hillary looks forward to America’s future she doesn’t embody it in the same way that Barack Obama does. He is younger, he is fresh on the political scene, and his race sets him apart from every past President America has ever known, at a time when the day approaches for minorities to make up the majority of Americas citizens. Obama, to many, represents our nation’s future.
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are bright and talented speakers, and they both speak carefully as well. Hillary plays up her experience and Barack is consciously inspirational. Their style differs, their appeal differs, but their politics do not differ as much to my eye as many people seem to think.
If Clinton triangulates, so does Obama, but he does so in different terms. Both show a proficiency to not get boxed in or pinned down. Both show an interest in accommodating different viewpoints even if their language stresses differing nuances; Hillary might highlight her ability to work together with different people while Barack might emphasize his capacity to bring different people together. It is not so very different, but primaries are about making mountains out of mole hills while fighting for the higher ground.
For example; the Clinton/Obama flap about their relative willingness to sit down in person with the leaders of nations that may not be our friends. Clinton and Obama essentially agreed but each had a need to appear like they didn’t. For Obama, it emphasized his bold convictions to stress a willingness to sit down with any world leader at any time to discuss the issues that might divide us. For Clinton it emphasized her “years of experience” to stress her understanding of how diplomacy builds from lower level meetings up to a Summit. In practice Obama would see to it that preliminary meetings were held prior to a Summit, and Clinton would make a Summit happen if doing so had any real hope of being fruitful.
To be blunt, I do not view Obama as a great progressive and Clinton as a centrist. Mostly Clinton has a longer record to find fault with, it’s the flip side of experience. Her record is a Liberal one. Obama has a cleaner slate; it’s the flip side of having less of a record, but his short record is no more Liberal than Clinton’s. We know that the Clintons have built practical political alliances over the years, and for better or worse, I see that drive and ability now in Obama also. I see real similarities.
Bill Clinton first got elected President in 1992; call him “Dem Politics 1.992”. Hillary Clinton first got elected Senator in 2000; call her “Dem Politics 2.0”. And Barack Obama first got elected Senator in 2004; call him “Dem Politics 2.04”. Their programs are not that terribly different. Upgrades are nice but not if they have not been sufficiently debugged. And while the latest upgrade might automatically appeal to cutting edge bloggers, that does not hold as true for the general public where the test of time holds greater value.
While I call it a major point in Obama’s favor that he opposed the IWR at the time, I note that unlike all 5 of the past and present Democratic U.S. Senators now running, all of whom voted yes on the IWR as did our 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee also, Obama was not actually sitting in a Senate hot seat when he made his earlier views known.. Me and my girl friend both opposed the IWR at the time also but I have to admit; I don’t think either one of us is any where near qualified to be President. It would be nice if it was that simple but it isn’t. Despite having voted for the IWR I think John Kerry would have made a good President. Despite having voted for the IWR I think Hillary Clinton will make a good President.
I believe while Barack Obama is a tantalizing candidate for President, he is not the right candidate for President at this point in a short political career. He may best represent the future, but we face challenges today that require both a firm grasp on the present and a sure hand to deal with them. That does come with experience. It is true of every field, statesmanship is no exception. Though experience devoid of vision has little to offer, a vision lacking the experience required to execute and achieve it remains a mirage. When last America elected a President, Barack Obama still sat in a state legislature, That was less than four years ago. Obama barely knows his way around Washington yet, let alone the power centers of the world. He will learn, but I think he remains a gifted student at a time when a highly accomplished pro is needed instead.
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are greatly talented. I believe his time hasn’t quite come yet but her time has. There really is a difference. Even the brightest apprentice still has much to master. Obama hasn’t faced real storms in National Politics up to now. His opponent in his first run for Senate was a virtual joke and Obama has not yet been called on to defend his record for reelection. His is an amazing story but the telling of it has mostly been positive to date. Obama has not been politically tested – he hasn’t yet faced the national Republican Party gunning to take him down, but Hillary has and she stood tall through it all and never missed a beat. She earned this appointment with destiny. It is time for America to elect our first Female President.
Hillary Clinton will be a strong and confident candidate. Her intelligence and competence will contrast well against anyone the Republicans can throw against her. She knows her stuff and that shows, and she has a popular two term former President standing next to her, and that too will help. Americans know that they were better off eight years ago than they are today, and that is the trump card that Hillary best can play. By and large Americans know what to expect from a Clinton Administration, By and large they expect it to be a lot better than what they have today. And that always wins elections. In uncertain times a strong dash of positive certainty is powerfully reassuring, and that too wins elections.
Hillary Clinton has strong support from women, she has strong support from Unions, she has strong support from racial minorities, and she has strong support from Gays and Lesbians. Each of those populations is a progressive pillar of today’s Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton isn’t my leftist dream for a President, but she is solidly left of America’s center, and we would be fortunate to see her inaugurated in January of 2009. Hillary Clinton now has my full support.
