Friday, December 7, 2007

Hillary Hating Is a Wasted Emotion

Many of the women quoted in the article below make reasoned arguments for why they are not thrilled at the prospect of another Clinton Presidency. Certainly we should not elect a person because of gender. We should not vote just to witness a "First." Hillary Bashing may deflect voters from the real fights ahead.


I've not been a Hillary hater. It was her vote on Iraq that made no sense to me. I think she sold her soul on that one, in order to gain some street cred as not being generically anti-war. I believe she thought it was a good political move when she was looking ahead.

At that point, I didn't realize that she surely was going to run for president. I couldn't imagine that she would want that fight. My hope was that she, along with so many others who have weighed the idea, would decide to be one of the best damn senators ever. It's a worthy goal. Having Ted Kennedy in the Senate all these years has allowed him to be much more effective in causes I care about. All the dynasty issues that come up are buffered by his continual reasonable efforts in the Senate. His personal life may have been in tatters but he's fought the good fight for generally good causes. Joe Biden has been a much better senator since his public deflation the last time he ran.

When people run for The Senate, are re-elected and then launch a run, they cannot do the job they were elected for. That bothers me too. Obama needed to master one role before moving ahead with a run.

This time around Edwards is not a senator. He's running for president. That's a job, and I respect him for it. If her health holds, the idea of an Edwards First Family is quite appealing to me.

Bill Richardson doesn't get enough attention and consideration on the podium. Both he and Chris Dodd would be great vice-presidents. I say that based only on the issues of electability for the number one spot.

Joe Biden might be the smartest, most knowledgeable of the bunch, if he could only force himself to ask questions during hearings, instead of making stump speeches.

People joke about Dennis Kucinich, but he's a needed voice. It's an ad hominem fallacy to dismiss what he stands for and his profound consistency just because he's quirky as all get out.

Probably I will vote for one of the people who is behind in the polls during the primary. After all, I live in Massachusetts now, not Arkansas, so I don't have to vote for anyone symbolically.

I would like to be living at a time when there is NO question about the candidate based on anything more than who we think will best stand for The United State, its Constitution, and its real moral compass.

What an embarrassing set of questions. Is the country 'ready' for: a woman, a black man, a Catholic who does not represent Catholic teachings, a non-traditional mainline Protestant. Sheesh. Eventually, that will be expanded to whoever else is not part of what laughingly passes as tradition. Is the country 'ready' for a gay person, an Hispanic (apologies to Bill Richardson but it doesn't register with most voters) a Muslim, a Pacific Rimmer and fill in the blank for every one else who could ably lead this country in a more humane direction.

In this actual presidential election, however, no matter what, I will vote for the Democrat. I don't think any of these candidates are evil or stupid. However, I don't think any of the Democratic candidates will insist we are a Christian country, ignore credible science, and start a pre-emptive war.


No comments: