Hillary, Not Barack, Is The One

Barack Obama is a likeable, thoughtful and intelligent young man and is a solid liberal voice in the US Senate. However, as his campaign proceeds, it is increasingly evident that he is not yet ready for promotion to the presidency. He has run his race on the basis of being an agent for change. So far, he has not given much evidence of what change he is advocating and how far his changes will go.

His health plan, for example, does not cover everybody; he is spending time trying to fix Social Security, which most experts agree is in relatively good shape, rather than Medicare, which does need help; he talks incessantly (and piously) about bringing people together without explaining what that really means; he makes naïve claims about his mastery of foreign policy - e.g., that he is "experienced" because he lived overseas for six years as a child - that make him look insubstantial; and for all his touted freshness in global thinking, recently rather than embrace the most important international organization on the planet, the United Nations, he attacked it in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, for its "flaws" - something conservatives do all the time.

In my view, he is a good person who simply lacks a substantive enough track-record in national and international issues at this point in his life to handle the presidency. My choice is Hillary Clinton. We who live in her home state, New York, have known and admired her for a long time. We know what America is now discovering about her - namely that she is an unusually tough and savvy political figure.

While she has outshone her competitors in the presidential debates, she displayed similar aptitude and adroitness in her senatorial runs in New York State. In her current campaign, she has presented an array of liberal alternatives to the Bush Administration but again she has done much the same during her time in Congress. She has known defeats (e.g., health care in 1994) but she has now turned her reversals into legislative prowess on the Hill. Her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee and her fact-finding visits overseas belie the notion that she has limited foreign policy experience. Her vote for the congressional resolution on Iraq in 2002 was a vote for continued weapons inspection and diplomacy and in opposition to preemptive war as she clearly stated in her Senate floor speech.

She has had her share of personal setbacks or woes, but she had invariably displayed a poise amidst all of them, which has discomfited her adversaries. Meantime she draws on powerful reserves of support from the minority community and women. Abroad she remains an inspirational leader for the United States. The American primary process once again reveals the strengths and weaknesses of our presidential contenders, despite its costs, its length, and its confusions.

The contest this year has given the American electorate a clearer picture of the formidable presence which Hillary Clinton will bring as the party nominee and which she will surely bring to the chief executive post in Washington.

Comments

[WIDESTANCE]

AMERICA IS SICK AND TIRED OF WAR

BARACK WANTS TO GET US OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST

HILLARY DOES NOT

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

[outnow]

Hillary Clinton is about as pro-labor as Richard Nixon. After all, Nixon was able to get the Teamsters vote. Just wage war for full employment. War keeps Wall Street in clover. The bankers love it. The oil companies can keep on controlling the country.

I gag every time I hear the name Hillary Clinton. I remember her flag-burning Amendment, her vote on one draft of the bankruptcy bill, her Iraq vote, her Kly-Lierberman vote. I can only visualize the Rose Law Firm billing records reappearing at the right time.

The "vast right-wing conspiracy" and now the "vast left-wing conspiracy." It's starting to sound delusional. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama have all been in the Senate. None have executive experience.

I like John Edwards because, of the three, he is the most populist of the three. I'd rather listen to that quiet Southern drawl than the shrill tone of Corporate America calling the shots behind the woman. Give me some change.

At least John Edwards has said that the war on terror is a bumper sticker. Hillary Clinton buys into it with her very heart and soul, and yours, too.

[SeanGardner]

Guess what Robert Reich (Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton) wrote on his blog(http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html)? He defends Obama against Hillary's attacks. Here is a sample:

"I"m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend (Hillary Clinton). While I"m as hard-boiled as they come about what"s said in campaigns, I just don"t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked (Obama's) plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn"t need a whole lot to keep it going " it"s in far better shape than Medicare " but everyone who"s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it"s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn"t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent " maybe to $115,00. That"s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that"s what Greenspan"s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama"s plan would "raise taxes" and her plan wouldn"t, she"s simply not telling the truth.

"I"m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I"ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama"s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC"s."

Whoa?!!!

[pros54]

I received the notice today. Anthem(BC/BS) of Maine is increasing premiums again come January. They have increased health insurance premiums every year for the past three years and for what? I have the luck of not having fallen sick and have been paying health insurance for the past thirty years and now I will be priced out of health insurance come January I will be uninsured and should I fall sick whatever I own will be sold off then Medicaid will pick up my treatment bills. Now comes the big question what happened to the money I have been paying all these years?

It beats me why many of our fellow citizens buy this health insurance (day light robbery) robbery that is happening to us and now we will also be forced to by it by HRC. It just sounds simple to me that a one payer quasi govt corporation beats everything. It is not free and everybody who is earning an income pays into it depending on earning. It will be the illness treatment insurance and pays for the treatment of anybody who falls ill. Of course the healthy subsidize the sick. Should the healthy fall ill they do not have to wonder where all the money they have been paying went.I am a long time. I am a life long democrat but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton as I do not want another Bush in the white house in the name of a democrat. If the Repubs are in the white house we recognize that that is who is there and deal with it.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

I hope--audaciously hope-- that Iowans choose the charisma and likeability of Barack Obama over the stale cynicism of Hillary Clinton. She is a role model for young women, a powerful figure in Washington who is smart, savvy, experienced. But Senator Clinton offers nothing new or exciting for the Democratic Party, at a time when we're riding a nice wave of momentum from the 2006 midterm elections.

Those midterm elections showed that not only are the politics of Bush/Rove a thing of the past, but so are the politics of Clinton/Carville (who still couldn't stop griping on CNN about Howard Dean's night of victory). The new Democractic momentum is based on an unashamed bold condemnation of the Iraq War, the sort that Rep. Murtha and Sen. Webb have given. It's about authenticity.

Obama's health care plan doesn't cover everyone? Well, it will cover all children, and almost everyone else, and he can get it done because the American people will trust him, which at least half the electorate can't do with the Clintons.

And before we talk more about foreign policy experience: the Clintons supported the war, even Biden voted for the war, when any conscientious American sitting at home watching the whole mess on TV, knew Bush was lying to us and that it was a huge mistake to take our attention off of al Qaida. Obama saw this in 2002, and we should reward him (or Kucinich) for standing up for something that would have saved thousands of lives.

[lgillooly]

Can someone please tell me what "awful" things she has done? Will we once again let the R's control the debate? She and her husband are intelligent,political,compassionate,and strong.Plus,they actually believe in the Constitution and real Democracy. Read "The Clinton Wars" and educate yourselves. Anyone who votes for a Republican in 08 after these last 7 yrs is a complete idiot.

[Dalicious]

As a recovering Democrat who is not a Christian, I find the prospect of Hillary so appalling that I am considering voting for Mike Huckabee -- and I've never voted for a Republican for president before. At least we actually know who the guy is. Hillary doesn't even know who Hillary is.

[truthyguy]

It surprised me that someone with Schlesinger's background would consider Hillary's 8 years as first lady an "experience" qualification. By that standard Laura Bush should be running for the republican slot. Then I looked more closely at Mr. Schlesinger's bio and saw "He is a specialist on the foreign policy of the Clinton and Bush Administrations." It explained a lot.

Hillary does one thing that no other democrat can - unite a now badly fractured republican party. 87% of Republicans at the last poll said they would not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. Overall 45% disapprove of Hillary (which would include democrats). Since to win a general you need not only independents, but also voters crossing party lines, Hillary cannot win and she will take all of us who hope for a change in the direction of this country down with her. Personally, I think the primaries will give all these so-call pundits a surprise when Hillary does not win one.

[Kyuzo]

Nominating Hillary would rally more Republicans to vote in the general election than abortion, gay marriage and gun bans combined. It would be an unmitigated disaster.

[therealredstateblues]

Its really up to each and every democrat when they step into the booth on primary day, search your conscience - do you really want to pick the wrong candidate again? do you really want to risk splntering the party and forcing many to either vote for a spoiler or stay home on election day?

Or do we select another candidate that is not so devisive among the party that the bulk of the party can get behind, whether enthusiastically or reluctantly or in between and march on to victory?

The choice is yours - please don't blow it

[jmangan]

Whether Obama or Hillary is the one, only time, and a few primaries will tell. But I really don't think an endoresment because she was elected in New York should carry much weight.

[Mark701]

This race isn't just between Obama and Hillary. How about John Edwards, Biden or Kunich? Making this a battle between just these two people reeks of corporatism and the preferences of the wealthy elite. As far as I know Edwards is the only canidate talking to middle America and the blue collar stiff.
My fear is that with Hillary we have a Bourbon Democrat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Democrat
That said however, if she wins the primary, I will vote for her because our worst candidate is still better than their best.

[6PercentIsUpperClass]

Mr. Schlesinger,
She sure hasn't been looking all that presidential lately. Is there some reason she's resorted to the "mud-slinging" that is "straight out of the republicans playbook"? I'd really like to get your thoughts on her (and i cringe to even use this term but..) glaring flip flop. If I recall correctly I believe it has been Mr. Edwards who has most aggressively attacked Mrs. Clinton. Can you please explain to me why it is that she has focused her character assassination solely on Mr. Obama? I'd also like to hear your insight into whether or not Mr. Dodd was right in bringing up the point of electability in a past debate. What say you to the recent Zogby poll that puts Nominee Clinton behind each of these lack-luster Republicans and Obama (or even Edwards) ahead? Has the cloak of inevitability been lifted?

[AmandaM]

Does your back hurt from carrying all that water, Mr. Schlesinger? Does your head ache from all the "facts" and soundbytes you've been asked to memorize and regurgitate? Is your tongue numb from navigating the talking points so many times? Have I got the cure for you!

Bill Richardson (you know, one of those "other" candidates) is strong in all the ways that count. He has more constuctive and useful foreign policy experience than any other candidate (with the possible exception of Biden). He is the only Democrat running who has actually been a Governor and has executive office experience. His Latino heritage can attract a growing and important constituency to the Democratic party. He is not a Washington insider nor is he the leashed pet of corporate lobbyists.

If you are sincere in your desire to improve this country and to change the way we run things, then you have to look past the gloss of the frontrunners.

[Seath]

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Bush's third term. The simple matter is that if we simply don't have the money to fix all the things that need fixing here and to try to take over the world too. We need to back off the world stage and be a good neighbor and re-establish our values. When you look at the crazy things that the Neocon's have gotten us into (torture - violation of human rights- destruction of the constitution)you wonder what happened to that great nation that you were taught about in civics class. Rove recently gave us a preview of what to expect from the republicans when the "shrub" is out of office - lies on a Herculian scale. Remember what Hitlers bunch said "tell a lie often enough...". This what we need to remember when we think of Hillary - she is the tip of the spear for the Globalists and continuing their agenda.