Re: Hillary, Vol. II

Robert writes: "To be honest, Obama is the presidential hopeful that has me the most worried. Clinton & McCain have both made mistakes, but they also also have a lot of experience and a track record. If one of them becomes president, we know what we're in for. Obama, on the other hand, has had very little experience combined with being very charismatic, a very bad combination in my book. If he becomes president, who knows what will happen? He seems idealistic now, but will he actually be able to implement anything? Will he end up as merely a figurehead while someone else ends up running the show. Heck, does he even really believe in the ideals he professes or is he just using them to increase his popularity?"


It is scary to vote for someone who doesn't have an extensive "track record." In fact, most often, these people, especially in an established democracy such as America, do not win, simply because people just can't bear to trust someone who they don't know that well. Jimmy Carter almost lost his presidential election this way.

However, Americans are realizing that track records and experience don't necessarily garner results. People ask what Obama would do as President. This is somewhat superfluous. Unless you are a president like Bush, who seems to almost enjoy doing seemingly illegal things without the approval of Congress and then watch them pass out in a flurry of legal investigation, deliberation and activity, presidents have a hard time getting things done, period. They must compromise with the other side, which often prevents them from getting anything absolutely radical passed. The Founding Fathers designed it this way. Thus, the public really has nothing to fear from Obama as far as what he would implement. Nothing that wouldn't be strained, ground up and scrutinized first by both parties (I just don't see Obama as the circumvent Congress type).

Second, would he even be able to get anything done? I would argue that he could get more done than Hillary. She touts great programs and plans, but she is a divisive and controversial character. Republicans would block anything she tried to pass simply on the moral ground that she's friggin' Hillary Clinton. It's like the anti-Christ of the Republican party. It's how the system works.

Obama as a president is scary to Republicans, however. He has the ability to draw across the board from independents and even other Republicans. He has demonstrated the ability to mobilize the public towards a goal from a grass roots level. Will he ever gain enough sway with the public that the other side would fear him like how the Democrats fear being branded as "soft on terrorism" and thus will cave in to every whim Bush has? Highly unlikely. First off, Republicans are notably more fiesty and angry about things, and Obama is not that popular. However, he still is popular enough to get things done.

But what about his inexperience? Will we trust him to make the right decisions? Remember, inexperience often breeds humility. Obama's willingness to acknowledge "the other side" in his speeches (something most politicians won't stand for) shows he's willing to keep an open mind. Because of his inexperience, he will more likely staff his cabinet with competent, intelligent professionals, and not just friends and those he owes favors to. This keeps him educated and on top, since it would be impossible for anyone to have all the answers anyway.

In contrast, those who have a lot of experience and are entrenched in politics are often rigid. They surround themselves not necessarily with those who would help them craft the most effective policy, but with friends and political allies. Clinton did it, Bush did it, and apparently, America is sick and tired of it. After all, it was blunders from Bush's advisors that got us into the mess that Iraq is today (and I'm not talking about going in there; more tragically is the poor advice given on how to conduct the ground operations in Iraq).

But how do we know that Obama is the one that we want? How do we know who he is from what little we can observe of his past? It is by observing how he runs his campaign and his general attitude and message in politics. Obviously, people are going for Obama, and (un)surprisingly, it's the college demographic. College students are more educated and up to date on politics and news than their parents ever were at that age and probably are still at their current age. Also, this demographic is notorious for being jaded and generally disinterested in politics in general. They never vote. They never participate (except maybe to riot or protest something from time to time). Yet, they are moving towards Obama in droves.

It's because there is a general air of dissatisfaction with Washington D.C. right now. And it is exactly because of the track records of the other candidates that the younger generations are flocking towards Obama. Most college students are not old enough to remember a president before the first Bush. Most remember vaguely the Clinton years from their middle and high school careers. To vote a candidate already established in Washington is to vote for the same thing that's been happening all their lives - fiercely partisan politics, scandals, unscrupulous earmarks, more pork attached to bills, more pandering to lobbyists, more bypassing constituency desires to fund their own pet projects.

Obama's inexperience is probably his greatest weapon. He's a junior senator, who runs a fairly nice, clean campaign. His catch phrase is not "experience," which only means the same old thing, but "hope." He speaks to a generation tired of being hated by everyone in the world, when they do very little personally to generate that hate. He does not publicize outlandish promises, nor does he endulge in protracted smear campaigns against his opponents. He runs a different campaign. He doesn't concentrate completely on largely populated states, but builds grassroots networks from the ground up. He even looks like the majority of the new generation of America - from a seperated, biracial family, half black, half Kansasian, raised for a part of his childhood outside the United States.

His attitude towards most of politics is compromise. He tries hard not to veer from one side of the pendulum to the other. His books and even his recent speech on race is frustratingly, beautifully middle road - always, "consider the other side" and "on the other hand" qualifications. He is willing to engage in a new kind of foreign policy, willing to sit down with leaders traditionally hated by the Department of State. This is exactly what resonates with a populace who is tired of seeing the same hardball Cold War tactics that just don't seem to work in an increasingly fractured, multilateral world. It's not just the Soviet Union and the United States anymore - it's the United States, Russia, China, the northeastern Asian states of Japan and Korea, South America, the European Union, the Eastern European states struggling for indepdendence from Russia, the Middle East, Africa, India and more (not to mention the "rogue" states). That's a lot of different sides to juggle, one that requires a "middle road" stance on decision making, one that deliberates all sides before making a judgement.

Obviously, I'm biased towards Obama because I'm impressed with his unwillingness to fall into a "either/or" fallacy about things. Sometimes he does (such as in the case of NAFTA, and even then he's qualified it as saying he'd renew it, but there would have to be, you guessed it, serious discussion involved on both sides), but more often than not, his speeches speak of things we haven't heard of in a long time - hope, solidarity, progress and compromise. Compare it with the polarity, the partisanship, the fear mongering against terrorists and the ever elusive War on Terror that apparently allows the government to tap our phones, arrest without warrent, ship people to secret prisons established around the world, start the wars and all those other things we absolutely hate about places like Iran and China.

People will vote for Obama despite his lack of inexperience (or perhaps because of it) because of how he runs his campaign. Clinton may have great ideas (and I won't deny they are great ideas) but she has a difficult time accomplishing her political goals without making a lot of people feel alienated - hence her failure to reform health care during the Clinton administration. McCain has a difficult time establishing a connection with the younger generations because his message is so out of synch.

Wow, that was long. I'm gonna cut this one off now.

Last comment from Robert: "And McCain being elected the same as Bush having a third term? Do you even know anything about McCain? Not only is he one of the more liberal republicans out there, but he's also one of the few republicans who has publicly criticized the Bush administration."

I am well aware of McCain being the "maverick" senator in the Republican Party. I was mentioning how other people say he will be Bush's third term. Note, I wrote "People say you shouldn't vote John McCain because it'll just be Bush's third term." People specifically meaning Democrats in general. While I think it's stupid, I pointed it out by telling Democrats that if this was the criteria for not choosing a president, then in my opinion, they should rule Hillary out as well.