An Endorsement
By Carl
(NOTE: The following reflects the personal opinion of the writer and in no way should be construed as the official position of The Reaction. If you're going to write nasty response to Michael and crew. Don't. Direct them to me, please)
I've put this off long enough, even though in truth, I don't have to do this until the New York primary. Since that gets lost in the flurry of Super Tuesday endorsements, I figured I may as well stake my claim now.
I've spent the entire past year on the fence about whom to support for the Democratic presidential nomination. I had my list narrowed down to three people: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and then, Barack Obama.
Edwards I discounted quickly, when his lack of character and toughness was on display for all to see with the whole "Catholic League/Bloggers" debacle. If he couldn't either shit or get off the pot..."Oooh, I don't want to arouse my base against me! Oooh, I don't want to take on the big, mean Catholic League!"...on that ridiculously inconsequential issue; if that's his idea of leadership, then he was the wrong choice. And that was just one issue: his flipflopping apology for the Iraq war vote smelled too calculated, and then there was the whole heartstring tug of Elizabeth's cancer, and running or not running.
Some will say that Marcotte and McEwan resigned of their own accord. That may be true, but I'd be willing to bet if Edwards had personally sat down with them and assured them that he'd take the heat (and that message was reinforced across the board), they'd still be blogging for Edwards today.
In truth, Edwards was on the list more as a hat-tip to the fact I voted for him in 2004 than anything he's done since.
Which left Obama and Clinton.
I admire both of them for different reasons, and none of those reasons have anything to do with the monumental courage each showed by just tossing a chapeau in the ring.
Barack Obama speaks to me of a new generation, a generation of ideals and idealists, unafraid to talk about issues despite the fact that he might actually have to take a stand on them. I like that. It appeals to the rabble-rouser in me. Even in his gaffes, he seems to have at least thought about what he leaves unsaid (as when he shorthanded his answer about meeting with Ahmadinejad, Castro, and Chavez).
Hillary Clinton just knows so damned much and seems to have an answer for every question thrown at her: not only are her answers detailed, they're usually light years ahead of anything anyone else throws out there. Many of her contenders' answers sound more like "And then, at this point, we pray it all works out".
There is no perfect candidate in this race, to be sure, and so this isn't a choice between the more perfect of two people.
Neither is it a choice between the lesser of two evils as even some on the left have tried to paint a vote for Hillary as a vote for evil.
Without disclosing too much, I've known of Hillary since her days working with Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund, with whom I've had some indirect contact. No less a conservative than Marty Peretz (nominally a liberal (LINO?), believe it or not) has called Edelman "Hillary's closest sister and ideological soul mate."
Which is why I find all the negativity from the left about Hillary so amusing and confounding. And why I also find the love-fest for Barack so intriguing.
After all, a careful examination of their voting records and public statements about Iraq show they agree on about 90-95% of the issues. And yet, Hillary's a DINO while Barack is a liberal love child.
I ain't buying that. It's easy to say "I would not have voted for the Iraq war authorization" and seem to mean it. It's another thing to skip the vote on the "Iranian war authorization" (not even officially, just a "sense of the Senate" vote), then to chide others for having voted for it, particularly when you've voted for every single Iraq war funding bill that you've been able to.
Ironically, the candidate who's being touted as "change" is not.
In eight years in the Senate, Hillary has shown an unique capacity to enlist the help of people of all stripes. No one who serves with her has too many unkind things to say about her. That could be useful in a Presidency that, for the first term at least, is going to be about cleaning up the messes..."Mom."
On the other hand, it does leave her open to charges of being too conservative, ironically the same charges leveled against her husband prior to his election, and look at what happened in those eight years: the greatest economic boom this nation, the world, had ever seen, without resorting to full scale war, and eight years of protection from terror attacks on our soil.
I say, "ironically," because Hillary was viewed in many corners, including left wing ones, as a bulwark of liberal thought in the Clinton administration and cabinet.
Barack Obama has demonstrated that he's not a man of character to me, despite his outward image. His actions speak volumes. With Hillary Clinton, we know what we're getting, and guess what? It's not a whole lot different than we'd get with Obama, but at least she's unfraid of her decisions.
Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee for President. She has my vote.
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
(NOTE: The following reflects the personal opinion of the writer and in no way should be construed as the official position of The Reaction. If you're going to write nasty response to Michael and crew. Don't. Direct them to me, please)
I've put this off long enough, even though in truth, I don't have to do this until the New York primary. Since that gets lost in the flurry of Super Tuesday endorsements, I figured I may as well stake my claim now.
I've spent the entire past year on the fence about whom to support for the Democratic presidential nomination. I had my list narrowed down to three people: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and then, Barack Obama.
Edwards I discounted quickly, when his lack of character and toughness was on display for all to see with the whole "Catholic League/Bloggers" debacle. If he couldn't either shit or get off the pot..."Oooh, I don't want to arouse my base against me! Oooh, I don't want to take on the big, mean Catholic League!"...on that ridiculously inconsequential issue; if that's his idea of leadership, then he was the wrong choice. And that was just one issue: his flipflopping apology for the Iraq war vote smelled too calculated, and then there was the whole heartstring tug of Elizabeth's cancer, and running or not running.Some will say that Marcotte and McEwan resigned of their own accord. That may be true, but I'd be willing to bet if Edwards had personally sat down with them and assured them that he'd take the heat (and that message was reinforced across the board), they'd still be blogging for Edwards today.
In truth, Edwards was on the list more as a hat-tip to the fact I voted for him in 2004 than anything he's done since.
Which left Obama and Clinton.
I admire both of them for different reasons, and none of those reasons have anything to do with the monumental courage each showed by just tossing a chapeau in the ring.
Barack Obama speaks to me of a new generation, a generation of ideals and idealists, unafraid to talk about issues despite the fact that he might actually have to take a stand on them. I like that. It appeals to the rabble-rouser in me. Even in his gaffes, he seems to have at least thought about what he leaves unsaid (as when he shorthanded his answer about meeting with Ahmadinejad, Castro, and Chavez).
Hillary Clinton just knows so damned much and seems to have an answer for every question thrown at her: not only are her answers detailed, they're usually light years ahead of anything anyone else throws out there. Many of her contenders' answers sound more like "And then, at this point, we pray it all works out".
There is no perfect candidate in this race, to be sure, and so this isn't a choice between the more perfect of two people.
Neither is it a choice between the lesser of two evils as even some on the left have tried to paint a vote for Hillary as a vote for evil.
Without disclosing too much, I've known of Hillary since her days working with Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund, with whom I've had some indirect contact. No less a conservative than Marty Peretz (nominally a liberal (LINO?), believe it or not) has called Edelman "Hillary's closest sister and ideological soul mate."
Which is why I find all the negativity from the left about Hillary so amusing and confounding. And why I also find the love-fest for Barack so intriguing.
After all, a careful examination of their voting records and public statements about Iraq show they agree on about 90-95% of the issues. And yet, Hillary's a DINO while Barack is a liberal love child.
I ain't buying that. It's easy to say "I would not have voted for the Iraq war authorization" and seem to mean it. It's another thing to skip the vote on the "Iranian war authorization" (not even officially, just a "sense of the Senate" vote), then to chide others for having voted for it, particularly when you've voted for every single Iraq war funding bill that you've been able to.
Ironically, the candidate who's being touted as "change" is not.
In eight years in the Senate, Hillary has shown an unique capacity to enlist the help of people of all stripes. No one who serves with her has too many unkind things to say about her. That could be useful in a Presidency that, for the first term at least, is going to be about cleaning up the messes..."Mom."
On the other hand, it does leave her open to charges of being too conservative, ironically the same charges leveled against her husband prior to his election, and look at what happened in those eight years: the greatest economic boom this nation, the world, had ever seen, without resorting to full scale war, and eight years of protection from terror attacks on our soil.
I say, "ironically," because Hillary was viewed in many corners, including left wing ones, as a bulwark of liberal thought in the Clinton administration and cabinet.
Barack Obama has demonstrated that he's not a man of character to me, despite his outward image. His actions speak volumes. With Hillary Clinton, we know what we're getting, and guess what? It's not a whole lot different than we'd get with Obama, but at least she's unfraid of her decisions.
Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee for President. She has my vote.
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
Labels: 2008 election, Hillary Clinton
posted by Carl at
8:49 AM
5 Comments:
You make a strong case, Carl. I know there are some vehement critics of Clinton here at The Reaction -- notably Edward, who has written some very find posts against here -- but I suppose I have to terms with a possible Clinton candidacy. In other words, I would support it. Meaning, I would support her. But, then, I would pretty much support any Democrat against any Republican. But that doesn't mean I like Clinton. She's right on a lot of issues, but she worries me on Iraq and Iran and on foreign policy generally. And she's too much of a triangulator, too much like her husband, too willing to reach out and embrace the other side. Sure, she can make the case that she can get things done in a bipartisan way, but who wants bipartisanship when it means making deals with the GOP?
As I argued in a recent post, I am back in the Edwards camp. There are things I like about Clinton and Obama, as well as about Dodd, but Edwards, to me, is the best of the bunch.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 5:22 PM
As I've said many times, Hillary stands for nothing other than her own ambition and how her campaign went off the rails after her own self-inflicted wound at the Philadelphia debate punctures the argument that she's ready for all the Republican attacks. She's the Democratic nominee the GOP hungers for because they know how to run against her and head-to-head matchup with most of the GOP contenders either puts her ahead or behind within the margin of error. We can't afford a close election in 2008 and we really can't afford Hillary at the top of the ticket because another term of a GOP presidency could be something from which our country might never recover.
By
Edward Copeland, at 6:40 PM
Edward,
Is ambition a bad thing? What motivates Edwards or Obama if not ambition?
You could make the case that a person like Dodd or Kucinich has some higher motivation, but since neither of them is likely to make it past this weekend, that speaks volumes about what motivates someone who can actually win.
By
Carl, at 10:59 AM
Yes, but they don't change their views on the basis of ambition. They don't sign on to anti-flag burning amendments, thinking it will fool right-wing voters into voting for them. They don't tell one audience one thing and then another the opposite. Hillary has nothing but contempt for the people: They are just an impediment to her getting what she feels she's entitled too. She has no concrete values on anything other than winning. If somehow she did manage to become president, her agenda for her first term will be less about cleaning up Dubya's mess than it will be about positioning herself for 2012.
By
Edward Copeland, at 12:38 PM
Edward,
Is it possible that, like me, Hillary simply thinks flag burning is wrong?
I don't see in a single argument you make against Hillary a single point that couldn't be levelled against Edwards, so I'm not sure why you choose him over her?
By
Carl, at 5:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home