Blog comment threads are full of snippets about voting for McCain if Obama is the Dem candidate. Apparently, supporting someone other than Hillary is a fundamental betrayal of her oft-discussed "35 years" of service to America. Notwithstanding the ridiculous assertion of that much "time in the trenches," I don't buy this argument at all.
She was the unelected wife of an Arkansas Governor and a two-term President. Later, ONE STATE elected her to represent them in the Senate. Why exactly does the rest of the country owe her a free pass to the "most powerful political office in the world"?
If Gore hadn't been sandbagged by Monicagate, Travelgate, FBI Filegate, Lincoln bedroom "sales", sketchy Chinese donors, NOT TO MENTION Hillary's failed healthcare push, this country might be an entirely different place right now. What about what we owed HIM? or Biden... or Dodd... or Daschle? How is Hillary owed more than any of these solid Dem politicians?
The last two election cycles have proven that we need to turn the corner on the leadership of this country. I'm old enough to remember when we held a moral high ground and were the model of Democracy on the planet. Seven years later, Bush has put our standing AND our dollar in the toilet.
For those of you who would REALLY consider "100-years More" McCain over an intelligent, inspirational, unifying and transformational leader like Barack Obama, I have to wonder what kind of progressive you are.
We have a primary season so Americans can determine THEIR CHOICE for President. Obama has captured the imagination of the electorate. That's what determines a person's "time" to be President. Not some quasi-dynastic sense of inevitability and entitlement. If Hillary is TRULY committed to public service (as opposed to wanton self-aggrandizement), she will take a look at the reality on the ground and realize America is not choosing her right now. If there is ever to be a "time" for her, it is clearly not now.
She was the unelected wife of an Arkansas Governor and a two-term President. Later, ONE STATE elected her to represent them in the Senate. Why exactly does the rest of the country owe her a free pass to the "most powerful political office in the world"?
If Gore hadn't been sandbagged by Monicagate, Travelgate, FBI Filegate, Lincoln bedroom "sales", sketchy Chinese donors, NOT TO MENTION Hillary's failed healthcare push, this country might be an entirely different place right now. What about what we owed HIM? or Biden... or Dodd... or Daschle? How is Hillary owed more than any of these solid Dem politicians?
The last two election cycles have proven that we need to turn the corner on the leadership of this country. I'm old enough to remember when we held a moral high ground and were the model of Democracy on the planet. Seven years later, Bush has put our standing AND our dollar in the toilet.
For those of you who would REALLY consider "100-years More" McCain over an intelligent, inspirational, unifying and transformational leader like Barack Obama, I have to wonder what kind of progressive you are.
We have a primary season so Americans can determine THEIR CHOICE for President. Obama has captured the imagination of the electorate. That's what determines a person's "time" to be President. Not some quasi-dynastic sense of inevitability and entitlement. If Hillary is TRULY committed to public service (as opposed to wanton self-aggrandizement), she will take a look at the reality on the ground and realize America is not choosing her right now. If there is ever to be a "time" for her, it is clearly not now.
Comments
Why is it that Obama supporters are so often painted as love-struck cultists? Or branded and a flimsy confederation of wide-eyed college kids, or wealthy elitists, who have no idea what’s best for the Country? What is so wrong with having enthusiasm for the candidate of our choosing? The biggest problem I have with the Clinton campaign at this point, is that they seem to have so little regard for their own place in history as it relates to pursuit of the nomination or the office of President.
So now we apparently have a “Commander in Chief Test” which Senators Clinton and McCain have BOTH passed with flying colors. When did we create this test, which is now so critical to our decision making process in selecting a nominee or a President? How is it that Barack Obama is so woefully inexperienced? By what measure? Are we comparing him to other would-be nominees or perhaps past Presidents? Should we compare Barack Obama’s credentials against all past Presidents, or perhaps only recent or successful past Presidents? Hmmm, let’s see what comes to mind.
In 1992, I was a wide-eye college student, who had just barely managed to survive two terms of Reagan and one of Bush Sr. There was a 45 year-old democrat from a relatively small, relatively insignificant state (insignificant only in terms of electoral college impact in a general election). He had almost no international experience of any kind, and wasn’t a war hero. This candidate ran a “Change” campaign against no less than a sitting President, who had previously served two-terms as Vice President, was former Director of the CIA (meaning he had vast international experience), AND a bona fide World War II Combat Veteran.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m talking of course about Bill Clinton, when he ran against George Bush Sr. So my question of course it this: If experience was the only measure that mattered, if there was a “Commander in Chief Test”, if 30 years of experience in Washington were prerequisites for the office of President, how could I have voted in good conscience for Bill Clinton in 1992? Was I secretly hoping to bring the Country to ruin? Was I some naïve fool ignorant of the ways of the world? Was I being swayed by “empty campaign promises” and crazy liberal schemes like Universal Health Care? Was I voting my age, or my race, or my liberal elitist values THEN?
EVERYTHING that we thought was SO great about Bill Clinton in 1992, his relative youth, the fact that he wasn’t a “good ol’ boy” Washington insider, his energy and enthusiasm, his message of Hope and Change- are PRECISELY why so many have been inspired to vote for Barack Obama now!
And let’s not forget how it all turned out for Bill. In SPITE of the numerous scandals, failed health care plans etc, Bill Clinton was re-elected in ’96 and left office in 2000 with a 65% approval rating, the highest in over 50 years!
It is the height of hypocrisy for the Clinton’s to now claim that the very things that made Bill Clinton’s candidacy important and relevant and utterly electible in 1992, are now suddenly irresponsible and even dangerous in 2008. (3am Phone Calls??? Really???)
Why can’t Obama beat McCain if Bill beat Bush Sr? In 1992, many considered the Gulf War at least marginally successful. In 2008 we are mired in a seemingly endless war in Iraq, which is quickly draining economic resources while we’re fighting both a recession and inflation fears AT THE SAME TIME! This election cycle is tailor-made for a “Change” campaign, and we have a young, energetic, inspirational candidate, who has the tools to defeat McCain’s “four-more-years-of-the-same” campaign, if the Clinton’s would get out of the way.
But I guess I’m the one still “drinking the kool-aid” from 1992.
Obama ‘08