If you're not into politics, this will be a very boring post. Consider yourself warned.
With Super Tuesday over and nothing decided on the democrat side, I felt the need to write something about my choice, if only to get my thoughts on paper. I don't expect to sway anyone or anything like that, but the more I've seen, the more strongly I feel that Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the democratic nomination.
On the most basic issue, policy, almost everyone concedes that their views are "almost indistinguishable." (New Yorker) That being said, Hillary is, in general, very slightly further to the left than Obama, with the biggest difference being her support for Universal Health Care. But both support immigration reform and both vow to pull troops out of Iraq in a short time, so it's not like we're talking about a huge gap. What the decision comes down to, then, is the old "experience versus change" argument. But what real "change" would Obama bring that Hillary wouldn't?
Which brings me to my next point. I would be happy and proud to have Obama as president, but his rhetoric of change and the support he's gaining is starting to resemble a personality cult. I'm not saying he actively avoids discussing issues; I think he started the campaign with that strategy, but jettisoned it quickly when Hillary jumped to her early lead. What I am saying is that when he gets into what I'll call "preacher" mode, policy issues disappear and it becomes all oratorial flash.
Everyone who sees Obama speak in public says how magnetic he is, and it's certainly apparent on television as well. There's a genuine inspirational quality about him. But let's not forget, Ronald Reagan had that too. Charisma doesn't always translate into great leadership, or great ideas. He's managed to galvanize the youth population, but I think there's something a little worrisome about that.
And before I continue, let me add this caveat: a few weeks ago, I was on the Obama train. My thought was that the raw force the man exuded was exactly what the country needed. But after reading and studying more, it's apparent to me that there's an act of seduction going on that can be construed as slightly disingeuous, on his behalf, and slightly credulous on the part of youth. The more I speak with Obama supporters, and let me again clarify that I was just as guilty recently, the more I realize that they don't have a command of the issues, but that they've simply fallen under the sway of his charm. And there's something to be said for a personality of that nature, especially in a position of leadership like the presidency, but for so many people to choose based on that alone is scary.
Enough, for now, about Obama. Let's get into the positives about Hillary.
*Toughness - Hillary has been vilified from day one, and for no better reason, at least originally, than being a First Lady with the audacity to pursue policy. She's always been a strong personality, and people bridled at that. When she introduced Universal Health Care reform in '94, it was defeated by the Republicans in what amounted to petty, partisan politics. Something that could have greatly helped the uninsured in the country failed merely because of conservatives hating Hillary. When the Lewinsky scandal reached its apex, Hillary was, astoundingly, vilified again. Some wanted her to leave her husband, and railed against her for "setting the cause of feminism back fifty years," and many accused her of staying with Bill for personal gain only. Never has a woman trying to hold a family together under impossible circumstances been so excoriated. Then, when she ran for Senator in New York, she was vilified again for having the gall to run for office and possibly harbor presidential ambitions. Rick Lazio, her opponent, even approached her aggressively during one of the debates. And now, finally, she's running for president and is vilified by both parties.
And throughout it all, what's happened? She's stayed strong, and she keeps winning. Show me anyone else who could have gone through that kind of hell, with unfiltered hating pouring in from all sides, and still maintained their character, grown as a politican, and grown as a person.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is tougher than Hillary.
*Experience- some are trying to frame this as the "experience versus change" decision. But again, what change, really, will Obama bring? Their policies are virtually the same, and what the "change" comes down to is the perceived notion that Obama's personality will somehow bridge gaps between Republicans and Democrats and set our country on a new, united path.
Dream on. I'm all for idealism, but if people truly think a black liberal from Chicago is going to win the hearts and minds of neocons and red staters, and if they think the Republican political machine, built for twenty years on the premise of dirty politics, wil lie down and die when faced with such a uniter, they need to wake up. There's a rift in America, and if the rift can ever be healed, it will be done with policy, not rhetoric. And when it comes to policy, Hillary's bringing the same exact change.
So if we put that idea aside, we're left with experience. When discussing their policies, although the general framework is the same, Hillary approaches with more pragmatism. She goes into details, some of which are boring because they're intricate and well thought-out. Obama speaks in generalities, focusing instead on the idea of a catalyzing change that will erase the gaps among Americans. Forced to choose between those two alternatives, I fall on the side of pragmatism. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I truly believe her when she says she'll be ready, on day one, to take over. She's thought everything through, certainly more than Obama (as I'll show later), and has real plans on every single aspect of governance.
To me, that's everything.
*Hard work - just as nobody's tougher than Hillary, nobody works harder. Even her detractors concede the point that, throughout her career as First Lady, advocate, Senator, and presidential hopeful, she's a dedicated, and at times obsessive, leader. A quick example is her newly-learned expertise on defense policy since taking her place on the Senate Armed Services Committee. There are a thousand more. Meanwhile, since becoming chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's subcommittee on foreign affairs, Obama hasn't held a single substantive hearing. A lot of that owes to time spent on the campaign trail, but it's certainly worth noting. In the end, we really don't know how hard he'll work, or how prepared he'll be for either the Republican attack machine or the presidency itself. Is that a chance we can afford to take? What do we really know about this guy?
And though Hillary takes a ton of flack for her so-called "ambition," (which, let's be honest, exists; nobody runs for president without ambition), it's Obama who strikes me as the more nakedly opportunistic. He's basically rode a tide of rhetorical flair to the nomination process at an incredibly young age, and without his qualities as a speaker, he'd be nowhere near his current position. He's certainly more calculating than Hillary. Which leads me to....
*Caring - this is an out-and-out personal call, but from watching Hillary speak, and hearing anecdotes about her more private moments, I'm convinced that she legitimately cares about people. She's spent a career advocating for the lower middle class and those below the poverty line. Her focus on education, health care, and immigration reform confirms the idea. If she plays dirty politics, or is accused by pundits of being cutthroat, I genuinely believe it's because she thinks she can help the most people, and desperately wants her vision instituted for America's benefit.
I don't mean to imply that Obama doesn't care. I'm just not convinced his desire for the presidency is 100% about caring. I think there's more personal ambition involved than in Hillary's case.
*Electability - This is the biggest knock on Hillary. The talking point among her opponents is that she won't be able to reach out to undecided voters, or to hold the middle ground, while Obama's charisma has a greater chance to make up the gap. I find that attitude to be completely flawed. Kerry was nominated on this premise in '04, and he got destroyed by the Republican attack machine. Keep in mind, the guy was a Vietnam hero and was running against the worst president in recent memory. And he still lost! It proves that the Republicans can and will go after anyone, no matter how unimpeachable their character seems. They'll go after Obama with the same fervor. Hillary, on the other hand, is tough as nails. People call her unlikeable, but watching her speak and watching her newly adopted tone of positivity and focus on policy, I can't see it. I think her character shines through, and I think her strength will become evident to more and more people. And she's already proven she can withstand the conversative attack. I envision a general election where she gains more and more support as people start to realize her true character, especially against a rigid guy like McCain. On the other hand, I can easily see Obama's rhetoric being exposed as a vapid defense mechanism for lack of experience.
And as a final, practical point, let's not forget that Hispanic voters have shown zero willingness, historically, to vote for a black candidate. That held true last night, which seems to indicate that it won't change in the near future. That could be a gigantic problem in swing states with large Hispanic populations, particularly Florida.
What it comes down to, in the end, is that I find Hillary to be a more pragmatic, prepared candidate. I think she's better equipped to lead the country, has more thoroughly researched solutions for the myriad problems caused by the Bush administration, and is overall more legitimate. The results of Super Tuesday seem to hold that up; she scored a huge victory among those in need, such as the working class, the elderly, and Hispanic minorities. Obama's main voters can all be attributed to his personality and "realm of influence," which includes black voters, youth, and undecided voters hoping to feel excited. It seems to lend credence to a very controversial, but perhaps valid, quote from a Clinton staffer:
"If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend, and you're young, and you have no social needs, then he's cool."
Personally, I'm going with substance over style.
