Hillary Clinton for President

by Taylor Marsh

It was the middle of primary season. Everyone was busy. But one morning an opportunity arose at an event I attended, when two women finally got the chance to meet. It's on this fine day that Hillary and I chatted, and I was able to size up the woman intending to make history, as she sized up one of the many women who wanted to, against all odds, help her do it. That's correct, against all odds. As Gloria Steinem said so well: women are never frontrunners. I'll just add, especially when they're competing for commander in chief. As I left after meeting her that day all I could think about was, Madame President had a nice ring and was long overdue.

This has been a journey for me. I didn't start out in Clinton's camp. Watching the media eviscerate her for being a woman, being brilliant, being competent and strong, being a Clinton, I started to get incensed at the hatred I was witnessing, the unfairness, too. I've read dozens of books and papers on her, but I began watching more closely. Then I saw her in action. She blew everyone else off the stage on substance. Barack Obama skipped the very first forum held in Carson City. The first health care debate Obama showed up, but wasn't ready with his health care plan and didn't have any details to offer. Clinton showed up and laid it out, point by point, Edwards, too. This happened in event after event; then debate after debate. It took Obama an entire year to catch up with her on debating the issues. That's as slow a learning curve as you're going to find for the biggest job in the world. No one noticed. In the last debate people started saying Barack Obama finally held his own. Finally being the operative word. Seeing a segment on Hannity & Colmes last night, voters for Obama were asked by Sean Hannity to name an accomplishment of Barack Obama's. Frank Luntz went from voter to voter to voter. No one could name one. Hannity was incredulous. But you're going to nominate him for president?

Personally speaking, we are facing an opportunity that is unlikely to happen again in my lifetime. Well, maybe it will, but I don't see any woman in the wings waiting for a shot. It hasn't happened in over 200 years, though that's hardly as important as the issues facing our country and who can solve them. Women got jailed for wanting to vote, and were the last to get it; though no one has suffered voting discrimination more than African Americans, which has been even worse for AA females. Women got jailed for wanting power over our own bodies. We fought to have rights separate from our husband. We're still fighting for equal pay. I doubt we'll ever get equal representation on the cable shows! (Forget Meet the Press.) We've been daughters, sisters, mothers, wives, single and now we can even be child free without stigma. We've come a long way, baby. We can have it all. So why not the presidency? We can't do any worse than the men, though that's not saying much considering the jackass in power right now. But what a man can do with no experience and a little flash, a woman of the same age cannot. Women need to work for years and prove they're ready for the job, while a man does not. Now, when one immensely qualified woman is ready to lead, we're all being told that she's not change enough. To some of us, regardless of race or even gender, she not only looks like change, but sounds like change, because she is the very embodiment of change. But that's certainly not the entire issue. We've finally been presented with a qualified woman who is ready and who's proven it. Elect a brilliant woman to do a job men have been doing for two centuries in a country where women are the majority. The first woman ever to run this country. Change, baby.

In countries across the world, where women have a voice the country is stronger. Can you imagine the potential for change, however small to start, in countries across the Arab and Muslim world, Asia and beyond, with a woman president willing to say "human rights are women's rights"? We are at a moment in world history where we have the opportunity to send a message to the world, and change the dynamics with it in countries where violence breeds world instability, bringing danger to our very door. Women can begin to change all that. By strengthening women's voices, including in countries where they have none at all, we increase the opportunity that countries will be put on a more positive footing, a more peaceful path. That's not just change for America, but change for the world. A girl can dream.

I can't tell you in one post why Hillary Clinton would be the most revolutionary change for America and also the world, but I can tell you that no one has her broad base of experiences, knowledge and Democratic ideological passion. No candidate, other than John McCain, understands the deep challenges we face in our strategic military placement, as well as in our Armed Forces structure. On foreign policy matters, I think she understands the levels of engagement that need to be in place before putting the prestige of the President of the United States and our country on the line. I also think she's less likely to make a rookie mistake that will cost us. Her caution is comforting, because after what Bush has wrought we're going to need patience to rebuild what he's destroyed. She's going to immediately start by rebuilding our diplomatic relationships through emissaries until she's face to face with leaders around the world who have pledged to deal with the new U.S. President. She also won't act on "actionable intelligence" alone, which has been costly in the past. Geopolitical engagement after Bush-Cheney won't be like turning on a light switch. It will take relationship building, which starts on levels below the president if you want to construct something solid that can't easily crumble with the world press watching.

It's difficult to separate emotion from a vote like this. Hillary Clinton embodies every fight I've ever waged. Every battle I've ever engaged. She is the embodiment of hope for all women, as well as anyone looking for a better life, a fairer break, young, old, poor and poorer. She's got the passion and she's got plans to make them happen. She gives me hope for the future, because I believe she actually knows what she'll face if elected and walks in to meet the federal bureaucracy. I won't be crossing my fingers. I'll be confident she can do it and will also know how to pick others who can too.

There are so many intangibles when picking a president. I heard Michelle Obama touting Barack Obama's experience on Sunday in L.A., via C-SPAN. She was good, too. At one point she went into a riff about his years in the Illinois State Senate saying, and I'm paraphrasing here, wouldn't it be great to have a president who has local experience and can understand what happens at the state level? That's a governor's job.

Men have been leading this country for over two centuries. But more importantly, we need someone who has demonstrated depth of knowledge on a full range of issues, with the mental acuity to also deliver on promises made. Finally, at long last, after two centuries of waiting, this time out that person is a woman. Her name is Hillary Clinton.

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[Damfino]

The problem, momorune, is that few are going to bother checking your link and so Hillary will continue to be considered a saint whose recognition is long past due. Taylor Marsh must know of this Peter Paul debacle, yet she very conveniently overlooks it. In my view, this Peter Paul item alone will sink the Billary ship and leave all of us life-long Democrats and Progressives twisting in the wind. Molly Ivins, may God bless her, knew what she was saying when she wrote Anyone But Hillary, and I don't believe that Molly was anti-feminine.

[laughingcoyote]

Give me a BARF BAG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[xfrosch]

I find Hillary's rhetoric vapid, her foreign policy positions too far to the right, her record on other issues inconsistent, and her ability to present a positive image and deal effectively with the media abysmal.

That notwithstanding, she may be a superior technocrat, although the candidate with the right positions on the issues that most matter to me was Mr. Kucinich. The fact that Kucinich was unable to seriously contend for the nomination speaks to what I consider to be the most important qualification for our nominee in this cycle: electability.

The people, at large and in the broad spectrum, do not like Hillary Clinton. They have had sixteen years in the public spotlight to get to know her, and they are still split almost evenly on the question of whether they would ever, under any circumstances, consider voting for her. I realize that this may be the crown of her desirability to many of the party faithful, but whatever you most desire of her promises, positions, and policies will never come to pass unless a Democrat is elected in November.

Mike Dukakis had the right ideas, right positions, was qualified for the job, was morally upright, but was uncharismatic; he lost. Walter Mondale was right on the issues and highly qualified, but not exciting or electrifying; he lost. JFK and Bill Clinton had some flaws on the issues, but were charismatic, compelling figures who actually gained office and accomplished great things while there.

At this point in our history, we cannot afford to run another technocrat with a dubious public image and poor media relations; that will gain us only four years of War President II. We must offer a charismatic, inspiring leader. Obama was not my first choice, but he's by a long shot the better of the remaining choices.

[ssb]

Beautifully said. Thank you for summing it up so perfectly. I have often also said that this is a huge opportunity - one that is not so easily come by (who else is out there who is so intelligent, widely knowledgeable, dedicated, hard-working, pragmatic, tough, fearless and unflappable if not Hillary?)
Maybe the only candidate with a real chance who will appear in my life time. She will be so fabulous. I want her to have the chance; she won't let us down.

[OtayPanky]

Taylor is certainly entitled to support Hillary Clinton for POTUS. But two things are worth noting:

1. Her hatchet jobs against Obama on her blogs are both shameful and shameless.

2. Read her blog and hilight all the passages that justify her support based on identity politics. I'll say it again: Anyone who chooses ANY candidate based on identity politics has NOTHING useful to contribute to the dialogue. Period.

[LeoMarvin]

If Hillary gets the nomination I'll vote for her.

But I won't like it.

[peaceandfreedom]

Taylor, I want to say that I love your use of YouTube, cartoons, graphics and really pretty color pictures on all your blogs!

[Giglawyer]

Thank you for finally ending the suspense. Based on the headlines of your last several articles alone, I was in total suspense as to whom you might endorse.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Per the NYDailyNews' Hillary endorsement:

"With seven years in the Illinois Legislature under his belt, along with just three in the U.S. Senate, Obama has never met challenges remotely of that magnitude. While no one comes to the presidency with perfect experience, he has been less tested than Clinton. And his conception of providing the vision for an administration rather than serving as an operating officer gives pause.

Obama's bravura performance in the campaign certifies him as a man of great political talent - and governing promise. After further Washington experience, notably in the national security realm, his time to become the Democratic standard-bearer may well arrive.

Clinton's time is here now. Her greater seasoning and instinct for taking command of the executive branch - from the Defense and State departments to homeland security and transportation agencies that just might find money for New York - are decided advantages. So, too, her projection of strength. She is the right choice for the Democrats."


http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/02/02/2008-02-02_for_democrats_it_has_to_be_hil_the_daily.html

[BUSHsurvivor]

I'm with you all of the way Taylor. The biggest change would be a strong intelligent woman running this nation, not yet another man who claims to not be a politician.

I come to HuffBO for comedy, now I am off to cnn for news.

Thank you Taylor!

[MrUnlimited]

"On foreign policy matters, I think she understands the levels of engagement that need to be in place before putting the prestige of the President of the United States and our country on the line. I also think she's less likely to make a rookie mistake that will cost us."

Um Taylor, were you ALIVE in 2002 when Hillary and her "3 decades" of experience (but only 8 years of ELECTED experience; Obama has 11 elected years, by the way) voted for the Iraq War? I guess if you're being technical you don't actually have to call it a "rookie mistake" since she has made it clear on countless occasions that she isn't a rookie. As for costing us...hmmm...Iraq has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars so far and the price tag keeps increasing.

[OhPlease2007]

Taylor, in my opinion, like Rudy and 9/11, the Iraq card is 'the only card Obama really has to play.' But since Obama wasn't in the U.S. Senate to debate all of the cherry-picked -&- bogus intelligence that the Bush administration falsely fed to Congress, him playing no role what-so-ever, how does 'one noted speech' from Obama in Illinois, speaking out against the Iraqi invasion, somehow magically garner Obama necessary credentials in Washington D.C. foreign policy experience to be Commander-­in-chief??­? Hillary may have only a few more years of foreign policy experience than Obama does, but at the end of the day, nobody in their 'right mind' is going to hand over the keys to nuclear weapons to a politician, like Obama, who uses 'one noted speech' about Iraq, to Monday-Mor­ning-Quart­erback his way into the presidency. There are many leaders in the federal government community that were also right on Iraq from the start, but unlike Obama, they don't have an almost 'identical' voting record to Hillary Clinton in the Senate, like Obama does! To me, it is a delusional pipe-dream for Obama to try to dupe America into thinking Obama has legitimately garnered the necessary Washington D.C. foreign policy credentials based upon 'one noted speech' when Obama played no part what-so-ever in Congressional debate over all of the well documented facts -- that Obama selectively omits -- regarding Congress being factually misled by the Bush Administration in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion.

In 2002, Obama endorser John Kerry supported the Iraqi war resolution *before* he was against it. While he was running for president, John Kerry *himself*, expressed that Congress was misled into war by Bush Co.!!! Why is it that Obama cuts John Kerry slack over his Iraq war resolution vote, but doesn't cut Hillary any slack at all??? At any rate, in Obama's 'so-called' stance about being "right" on Iraq, it seems all too clear that, Obama's only card to play on Iraq, is ... 'the joker.'

[Rule Of Law]

I think this one bears repeating:

AgathaX (See profile | I'm a fan of AgathaX)
Big reasons I will not vote for Hillary:

(1) Hawkishness
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070814_hillary_pushes_the_button/

(2) Anti-union
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509

See also this article about her experience generally: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/26377.html

(3) Trying to change the primary rules, mid-election
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14366.html

(4) Attempt to prevent casino workers from voting AFTER union endorsed Obama, and Bill's defense of the groundless suit.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/73702/

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/73702/

(5) Bill's race baiting in SC, and his effort to pin blame Obama and the press.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/01/24/2008-01-24_bill_clinton_says_obamas_campaign_brough.html

(6) I'm uncomfortable with the role she tried to play in the Clinton administration and am uncomfortable about the role Bill would play in her administration. I do not understand why the Clinton's appear to be hiding rather than releasing the records of those years.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351

I'm uncomfortable with Hillary for a host of other reasons as well, but that's a start.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Wilson on Obama's bomb Pakistan with "actionable intel" blunder:

""It was reinforced today by Musharraf's comment that any U.S. bombing of Pakistan would be considered a hostile act.

That is precisely how reckless it is to be sitting there saying, yeah, if we have actionable intelligence we'll just go ahead and bomb a sovereign country.

The last thing we need to do is to further exacerbate anti-American opinion in a country that has a significant fundamentalist population and has nuclear weapons.

So I think that is really born out by what Musharraf said yesterday or today. How delicate international diplomacy is today and how important it is to measure your statements and not to act in a way that can be construed as reckless.""


http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26818

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Per Taylor, Amb. Wilson:

""Well, I think the fact that's [the infamous war authorization resolution] dominated the narrative is an indication of how little people really understand the dynamics of the debate as it was going on at the time.

And the people making a lot of hay over this weren't there. I was there. I was fighting the fight. I looked to the left of me. I looked to the right of me. I didn't see Barack Obama anywhere.

I was out there and there is nobody who can deny that. ... I didn't talk to Edwards about it because he was a co-sponsor of that particular resolution, whereas a lot of us were trying to fight for more restrictive language. Being in the minority, you couldn't get that restrictive language at that time. So what happened the day after the bill was passed?

Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd went down and submitted another bill which further restricted, attempted to restrict the ability for the president to act.

But in actual fact, those who were there at the debate will remember that the American people and the U.S. Congress were sold on this resolution not because the president wanted to go to war, because he said publicly, I do not want this resolution to go to war. I want this resolution so I can get to the United Nations and get intrusive inspections. That's what Colin Powell said. That's what the president of the United States said and that's what they got. They got a resolution that permitted the president of the United States to go to the U.N. and get intrusive inspections.

The great betrayal of the America people is not in that Resolution. It was in the president not allowing the inspections to reach their natural conclusions. He short circuited the process. That is the betrayal of the country. That is the betrayal of the Congress. That's the betrayal of the American people. That's the betrayal of the world.""


http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26818