Making the Case for Hillary

With the Iowa caucuses finally upon us, the time is right to begin the political discussion. We are now in an election year, although it seems like we've been in one almost since the last election ended, such is the case with our almost continuous election cycle. Although I argue that it's not necessarily a bad thing, especially when the alternative is more stories about the dysfunctional trailer trash family known as the Spears sisters, or the latest kidnapping or murder cases that otherwise permeate the mainstream news media. At least politics makes for interesting spectator sport if nothing else, and so far as we know none of the major candidates are using steroids (can you imagine Fred Thompson shooting Mike Huckabee in the butt in the green room before the next televised debate) and none have been busted for shoplifting while campaigning in Cedar Rapids, so they've got a leg up on sports in that regard. But the time is near to declare intentions, and to cast votes in the primaries, which are mostly coming up within the next month or two. I have been holding out, trying to take in as much information as possible and considering all the issues and stances and qualities that would make a good president. And I have come to some conclusions, at least for now as these opinions are always subject to change as events on the ground occur.

For starters, I don't believe that a Republican deserves the White House. The Republican party has dropped the ball to say the least over the last seven years, both on Pennsylvania Avenue and on Capitol Hill. They have strayed from their fiscal conservatism, have taken social conservatism to new lows, have initiated and perpetuated a costly war, and have basically just screwed things up so badly that if they were an Italian league football (soccer) team they would be relegated to the B league. When the Republicans took control of all three branches of government in the middle part of the decade, the ball was in their court. Had they succeeded they would have taken, and deserved the credit, and the Rovian notion of a permanent majority might well have occurred. But they have not, and when you fail, you should be held accountable. So although there may be some fine fellows in the GOP field, I would not be able to endorse any of them because of their association with a failed party. And don't doubt for a minute that any presidential candidate is beholden to his or her party, it's how the game is played in our two party, winner take all system. Whether or not George Bush's compassionate conservatism was genuine or a ruse to get elected, he has fallen in line with the conservative elements of his party, and it is naive to think any candidate, even the latest self-proclaimed outside the beltway candidate Barack Obama, can change the system. If the system is going to be changed, and I argue that it should be, it will take much more than one person and one term of office to accomplish that.

So that leaves the other party in our dualistic notion of republican democracy, the Democratic party. I am not enamored with their lack of accomplishments in the last year since taking control of the Congress, but they are the best alternative, namely as the only alternative, to the failed GOP. It is their time to take the reigns of power, and they should be held accountable for their performance over the next five years.

My initial preference for president was Bill Richardson. I believe that he is the most balanced and experienced candidate for the job in many regards. He has experience as a high ranking diplomat and understands the nuances of foreign policy and diplomacy. I doubt he would automatically pledge to meet with every foreign leader, friend and foe alike, as Obama claims he would, yet he has sat across from enemies, and would presumably know how to handle himself in this ever more important arena. He also is experienced as a governor, which means he understands the complexities of dealing with the legislative branch and the compromises involved in getting legislation passed. He also would have understanding of domestic policy as well as the balance required in a federalist system such as ours between the powers and duties of the federal and state governments. But Mr. Richardson does not seem to have a realistic shot of winning the nomination, for reasons of which I am not quite sure. The mainstream media anointed the Big Three candidates early on and Richardson was not one of them. Unless he catches fire early on, it's doubtful he will be much of a factor when the barrage of decisive primaries hits in early February.

So my choice is Hillary Clinton. She is calculated and conniving. She is prone to analyzing opinion polls and shaping her opinions and policies to adjust to the prevailing political winds. In short, she is a true political animal, probably more so even than her husband. And I like that, I respect that, I even to a degree admire that. I want a president who knows how to play the game, because that is how you get things done. Sure, the idea of changing the system and introducing a new kind of politics is a sweet notion, but it is not realistic, and I try to live in the real world when it comes to politics. Just like the populist notions espoused by John Edwards are great in theory, fighting for the middle class, taking on big corporations, but what does it mean? Is he going to help me ask my boss for a bigger raise if elected? Is he going to sign an executive order lowering gas and food prices? Of course not, it's just so much pandering to the middle class, which is more to blame for their own condition than big business or Dick Cheney and Haliburton, or the Chinese, or Mexican immigrants, or unscrupulous mortgage brokers, etc...

Hillary knows how to roll up her sleeves and get dirty, and that's what we need. She not only has experience in the executive branch, as a partner with her husband for 8 years, and has learned valuable lessons in how the game is played from that perspective, but she has experience as a serious senator who actually shows up for votes, serves on key committees, and takes positions on issues. Not that I agree with all her positions, but I respect and admire that she takes them. Edwards was in the Senate for about 15 minutes before he decided to run for president, and Obama has spent more time writing books and hyping his own candidacy than he has serving the good people of Illinois or the country at large. Here is a telling statistic, and I'm sure if I were to research their voting records I could find more to back up my claims, but this is something I read in the Times just this morning. Edwards has never even visited Iraq, Obama has been there once a couple years ago. Hillary has been there three times. That doesn't prove anything in and of itself, but it shows that she is about more than just rhetoric, that she is willing to do the hard work required of a president, and is not one to just phone it in and take pot shots at those who are in the arena.

Hillary Clinton is not her husband, who in my opinion was the most successful president since FDR. She may actually be even better, in fact I'm convinced that she will be. She is probably smarter, and is a more serious minded politician than Mr. Clinton. Yet she will also have the benefit of his knowledge and wisdom gained from his years as both a president and a former president. Hillary is tough and proven, she has succeeded in a man's world and should not have to go machismo to prove herself in that regard. She is sharp, shrewd, and effective. Like her husband, she just seems to get it, something that has been sorely lacking in the nation's highest office for the last seven years. And unlike her husband, I think it is safe to say that she can keep it in her pants, or whatever the female equivalent of that might be.

I am supporting Hillary for president without reservation, knowing that she is not the perfect candidate because there is no such thing. She is the best person for the job, one who can lead the nation and our government well into the next decade, and hopefully start to get us out of the morass that the current administration has and is continuing to put us in.