It would be great to have a female president. But just because she is female does not necessarily mean she is the best candidate or that all female voters should support her. We would be doing ourselves a disservice if we voted for her based on her gender (same if we voted for Obama because he is black).
Here is a very simplified listing of some pros and cons regarding the viability of a Presidente Hillary. Energy, Environment, Education, Health Care and numerous other issues are not mentioned... in many of these areas, Obama and Clinton have similar positions. Her candidacy is described in more detail in the NYT editorial I have posted below my comments.
1. Knows the system, and would maneuver well within the role of national leader and head diplomat.
2. Has been very competent in her work as a New York senator, and has kept her constituents happy (for the most part).
3. Is extremely intelligent and articulate. She has a manner of speaking that helps her get the last word when in debate, which will help her deal with the other (mostly male) national leaders.
4. Would have a great consultant (in her husband) available 24 hours a day.
Why she shouldn't be president:
1. She allowed her campaign and her husband to inappropriately insert the race card into the campaign. Some of Bill's comments were clearly provocative - why would she allow for such a thing?
2. She voted for the Iraq war and refuses to admit that was a mistake (sounds familiar?)
3. She has hopped around the issue of immigration. In last night's debate she said that undocumented people should not have driver's licenses because they would be identified by the authorities as "illegal." Her answer was inaccurate... the immigrants would only be in danger of detainment if the license program that was implemented was one of the two tier system (like what was presented in New York). If the same license was available to everyone, there would be no risk of being deported.
5. This is a more personal reason, but I believe highly relevant. She would be a poor role model for young women in that she continued her marriage even after her husband repeatedly humiliated her with his extra-marital involvements. I'm not sure I would want this as an example for my daughter. The message to American women would be that one should stay in the relationship at all costs which is a story that became no longer viable after the mid-20th century.
I cannot officially say I would prefer one candidate over another. Generally I vote Democrat, but lately I have begun to think of myself more as an Independent. My doubts about the political process were greatly intensified after the 2000 presidential election - I have not yet been convinced that things have gotten much better. I have watched the debates with hope that the candidates will present themselves as real people instead of political robots. Unfortunately, campaign politics in the U.S. has become like a rigged game show.
As a last word, even with all my doubts, I have to admit I'm fascinated - and I'm looking forward to the results of Super Tuesday.
January 25, 2008
New York Times
Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton
This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.
The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.
As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.
We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.
By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.
On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.
It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.
Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.
The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.
The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.
We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.
On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program.
Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.
As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)
We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.
Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.
When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.
Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.
for link to article click the title of this post