Why Not Hillary?
USA Today ran an article today about why some Democrats are not convinced that Hillary could win the presidency. There is the issue about whether or not America is ready for a female president (or more correctly, for a non-white male), and I think it's a real concern. Although it's sad that this is still an issue in the 21st century, I think it's one that actually influences how people will vote.
That point aside, I found the three other reasons less convincing:
1. she's not warm and fuzzy
2. she supported the war in Iraq
3. the marriage
First of all, while Clinton is not as personable as either Obama or Edwards, why is this even an issue? G.W. Bush is quite affable ... but he's also quite laughable. Haven't we learned some lesson from the past 8 years? I realize that personality hindered Kerry and Gore, and I certainly appreciate Obama's charisma, but in the grand scheme of things this should not be our main focus.
Secondly, who didn't support the war in 2002? (Well, I didn't, but I was not in the majority at that time.) It's incredibly hypocritical of Americans to forget that most of them supported the war as well. I also think the comparisons with Obama on this point are unfair since he wasn't in a position in 2002 to represent his state's constituents on this point. Perhaps he would have voted against it, but we don't really know that. What's more important than the 2002 vote is how to clean up the mess.
Third ... the marriage. This is a tough one for me. I have always suspected that Hillary stuck by her man for political rather than personal reasons and that bothered me. However, her personal life won't affect how I vote. The marriages of the other candidates won't come under the same scrutiny as this one, and they are probably just as dysfunctional. If anything, I think B. Clinton is an asset to her just because of his political experience and savvy.
That point aside, I found the three other reasons less convincing:
1. she's not warm and fuzzy
2. she supported the war in Iraq
3. the marriage
First of all, while Clinton is not as personable as either Obama or Edwards, why is this even an issue? G.W. Bush is quite affable ... but he's also quite laughable. Haven't we learned some lesson from the past 8 years? I realize that personality hindered Kerry and Gore, and I certainly appreciate Obama's charisma, but in the grand scheme of things this should not be our main focus.
Secondly, who didn't support the war in 2002? (Well, I didn't, but I was not in the majority at that time.) It's incredibly hypocritical of Americans to forget that most of them supported the war as well. I also think the comparisons with Obama on this point are unfair since he wasn't in a position in 2002 to represent his state's constituents on this point. Perhaps he would have voted against it, but we don't really know that. What's more important than the 2002 vote is how to clean up the mess.
Third ... the marriage. This is a tough one for me. I have always suspected that Hillary stuck by her man for political rather than personal reasons and that bothered me. However, her personal life won't affect how I vote. The marriages of the other candidates won't come under the same scrutiny as this one, and they are probably just as dysfunctional. If anything, I think B. Clinton is an asset to her just because of his political experience and savvy.
posted by Janet | 12:41 PM
1 Comments:
Amen Sistah!
About the war - Hillary has gone on the record as saying that she supported the war at that time with the information they knew at that time. That she is moving forward - dealing with the obstacles and conflicts that are in the present.
Fair enough, I think.
Post a Comment
<< Home