Postby Dutch » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:46 pm
Okay, these are my three cent on this subject - not the jackass you work with, that speaks for itself - what a douche fairy - but to the issue of electability and the direction of America:
I personally love Barack Obama, as far as Democrats go, or politicians for that matter. I think he's exceptionally bright, I think he's a forward thinker, and he could be the future of the Democratic Party and a new paradigm in American politics. But this is not his time. He is too inexperienced to be president, he's too inexperienced to even run a truly effective campaign. He's had some great success, and he's a front-runner, but I think a lot of that support is based on people's love of the spectacle and also on grassroots support that is not powerful enough to carry him through the homestretch. One of my concerns, even if he did get the nomination, is that because of the types of political compromises he will have to make to win in the general, he will end up being forced to either betray his most fundamental grass roots supporters and the bold populist positions that have made him their darling (as Senate Majority Leader, he could have been in a much stronger position to lead on many of these issues), OR he'll hold to his positions, which I admire, but it will cost him the crucial battle for moderates and undecideds, and thereby the general election. And most of all, I mean that when I say he's too inexperienced, these are the kinds of things I'm talking about: he does not have the political experience and savvy to navigate these delicate balances and turn them to his advantage. He could be the future of the party and country, but he's blowing a great deal of his remarkable political capital on this primary campaign, which even if he wins, will end up either betraying his supporters or throwing the election to the republicans, or god forbid, the third-party candidate the Christian Coalition-types have publicly stated they're considering, though I doubt they will; that would guarantee a Democratic White House.
Which leads me to Senator Clinton. She has as much, if not more political experience AND savvy as anyone else in either field. Her fundraising, though slightly less than Senator Obama's overall, is generally more substantiable, and more importantly, was higher for this last quarter going into the primaries. Her fundraising has been steadily increasing while Obama's has dropped sharply. That is going to create a great deal of momentum during this crucial period going into the primaries. She's holding significant ground in key primary battle ground states, and her support has been consistent since the beginning of her campaign in a way that Barack Obama's has not. She has substantive experience at all levels of government, from civic law and charity work, a great deal of which has been aimed specifically at children's and family health issues - which she's managed to do while maintaining a pro-choice position - to the governor's mansion to eight years in the White House, during which she took on unprecedented leadership in policy issues and redefined the role of the First Lady. She leveraged that into a huge Senate win, becoming a member of the upper house of our federal legislative branch representing one of our largest and most influential states during a time of crisis. She has held that seat and has not only acrued a great deal of legislative experience, but she has built relationships on the hill that could go a long way to establishing good will between the two branches during her presidency and break a great deal of logjams, especially with someone like Obama as majority (or god forbid minority) leader (if he can stay in the Senate, I'm not sure how much longer his current term lasts). She is even tempered and she has been preparing for this longer than anyone. She has overcome a great deal of political obstacles, and has stuck with it longer than most. And I think she's going to win the whole thing. She can beat Romney, she can beat Guiliani, even in their own state, McCain can't even win his own party, and Ron Paul and Fred Thompson don't have even base support in their party.
Now, I will whole heartedly concede the possibility that there may still be a slim majority of back breeds in this country, for what ever reason, who are not comfortable with the "idea of a woman as president." However, I think there are concerns on the parts of most Americans that trump that one, and they know we are in deep, DEEP trouble right now. Presidential approval rates have never been lower, and people are ready for change. These campaigns are ALREADY proof that this is a paradigm-shifting time in American politics, and the blue ribbon is more up for grabs than it's ever been. I think that, all obstacles and credits aside, Hillary Clinton might be positioned better than anyone to just snatch it up for herself, and I think also that there are way worse things that could happen than another Clinton Presidency (imagine how strong her campaign is going to be when she wins the nomination and announces Gore as her running mate at the convention). At the end of the day, I think if she can convince 51% of voters that she is the right person for the job, they will vote for her EVEN THOUGH they might not be comfortable with the "idea of a woman as president." At that's what it really comes down to: who can do the job. And she can do the job. If you're looking to the candidates for someone to trust, you'll looking for love in all the wrong places. Pick someone who can do the job, and pick someone who can win. If we got even one of those only two things, it'd be one or two things more than we've had for the last 7 years.
"Mere 'I prefer my friends to stay in my computer' 1975"
