I would like to make the best case for Hillary Clinton as the President. While she is not my perfect candidate and Obama definitely is competing strongly, I would still vote for her. Why? Here are some of the reasons:
1. She is the most qualified out of all the candidates to be the President. After all, she knows about the job from first-hand experience. Don't you think being a First Lady to one of the most successful presidents in the US history is an additional point on her resume? She is familiar with the overall stress level and essentials of the job. We know that she had great influence on Clinton. Therefore, she should also get credit for his success. She has done well as a Senator. She is a very sharp politician, knows what to say and when and how. Diplomacy will be her strongest quality. While she may not be the best speech maker, she does not mumble like Bush and does not make English grammar mistakes. She leaves a very solid impression.
2. She is a woman and is sensitive to many social issues that most men are just not. Half the population has been largely ignored in many ways in the still male-dominated world. It is time for us to get someone who will be more or less like us. I fear that the other half of the population won't vote for her just because of still lingering sexism. Why do you think so many hate her? I am already tired of the assumption that women are simply not 'qualified' for a job. We live in one of the most developed countries in the world, but count how many women we have on the Supreme Court, and how many women leaders have we had in our history? It is even ridiculous and pathetic!
3. She has the ability to be bi-partisan. First of all, she is a centrist in many ways just like Clinton. Of course, I wish she was more liberal and I certainly disagree with her on some issues, for example the war on Iraq. She voted for use of force in Iraq. (That is probably the biggest problem I have with her. Of course, she voted so on the basis of the false evidence presented.) But in this divided land, we need someone who can in fact appeal to both sides somehow and bring some sort of a consensus. She knows the secret behind that. While she has been a bit unpredictable in her voting pattern, that is largely the way politics operates. Especially centrists are always attacked for that. When you try to be bi-partisan, you are attacked as unprincipled.
4. In foreign policy she won't be able to undo much of what has been done. But she certainly will be able to moderate the anti-American sentiments by her vastly different approach to diplomacy and negotiation. Her image in of itself is so different from what we are used to getting from Bush. In fact, I predict that she would be able to bring some sort of hope for peace in the Middle East. Just like Clinton, she might even succeed in the Israel-Palestine deadlock. My hope is that she wouldn't take this country into another war. Iran is definitely lined up by the Bush administration. The problem she would have to face as a President is how to do the right thing internationally-- for example, in the area of human rights-- even when the short-term national interests are in conflict. That is the challenge for all political leaders, isn't it?
5. In domestic policy, while she may still be more conservative than I wish, she would certainly be able to do something for the middle-class folks, health care and the environment. Even if she does not succeed, she could stop the catastrophic economic and social crisis that we have due to the war in Iraq.
I hope, she gets the endorsement of the Democratic Party and gets the chance to be the President of the US. As cynical as I have become about politics in general, I still try to hope for better... Frankly, anyone would be better than Bush!
For the voting history of Clinton see here.
8 comments:
The record of the Clintons with respect to recognition of the Armenian Genocide is not honorable. Now it seems that Hilary has retained an anti-Armenian lobbyist, Mark Penn, as her chief strategist.
www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/the-clintons-the-high-pr_b_77298.html
Thanks for bringing that to my attention (not really news to me). In any event, I do not think that any American elected official would be able to do anything for the recognition of the Armenian genocide. As you saw recently with the symbolic bill and the Turkish reaction, there are too many political and national constraints on that. While Turkey remains an 'ally' of the US in the Middle East, the issue of the Armenian genocide will be secondary at best. I am just trying to be realistic with respect to that.
The Clintons approach to the Armenian Genocide is symptomatic of their level of integrity.
President Bill Clinton was fully aware of what was going on in Rwanda at the time of the genocide in that country but refused to do anything and in fact his administration blocked attempts to have it categorized as genocide under the Genocide Convention in order not to be forced to get involved.
Of course his record with respect to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide is deplorable as in 2000 he called House Leader Dennis Hastert minutes before the resolution was to go a vote and convinced Hastert not to put it to a vote.
Hillary Clinton has been a strong backer of the War in Iraq.
Well, valid points. I never said that either Hillary or Bill Clinton are my 'favorites.' I also never said that Hillary would be a 'human rights' or 'civil rights' leader. Frankly, I have given up on the emergence of political leaders who would really seriously give human rights a priority. When was the last time in America when we had a President who was taking human rights as a priority? JFK? They all talk and make wonderful comments, but when it comes to action, no one delivers.
But putting aside this skepticism, I am still a Democrat, never a Republican. In a perfect world, Democrats are more capable of doing something good, than Republicans, because of the value system. The whole Republican party has proven to be completely lacking in integrity and submerged in corruption in these last 8 years.
So, attacking Hillary or Clinton is of no avail.
Bottom line, Hillary is my choice because she is an experienced woman Democrat. Despite of all the imperfections...
As far as all the other Democratic candidates, I don't think any of them is more qualified than Hillary, who in my eyes has an additional appeal in that she is a woman. If the world was ruled by more women, it would be a better place to be... Most women do not want wars because it is their children who die in those wars...
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is a very intelligent, experienced, and ambitious woman. It would probably be a good thing for the U.S.A. to have a woman president (as it would to have a black one).
Unfortunately the record of Democrats (slavery, Vietnam, etc.) is not better than that of the Republicans.
It would be a good thing to have more women leaders but it does not follow that women are less likely to lead their countries to war. This has not been the case with Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, etc.
It is ironic and a little sad that someone whose blog is entitled 'In Memoriam of the Armenian Genocide' does not hold her political candidates to a high standard.
Thanks for critique. Probably, the answer to your concern is this: I carry two worlds inside: the incorrigible idealist/optimist and cynical pessimist/realist. Depending on which wins at the moment, my opinions reflect that... As many times I give up, that many times I find the path towards hope... If you are really in support of Obama, you have my full support... with no reservations... As long as a solid Democrat gets there. But I don't know if any politician can do miracles...
Thanks for the productive discussion.
Post a Comment