eclectica
2008-01-21, 10:14
I don't know how it came to be that Hillary Clinton became a Senator for New York. Prior to being in the White House the Clintons were from Arkansas. She was elected a second term as a Senator for New York in 2006. While campaigning for the 2006 election she claimed that she had no presidential aspirations and was only interested in being the Senator from New York.
A lot has changed in one year. Now we have Hillary running for President; and Bill, her legal husband, having fits (http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385) of rage, charm, and arm twisting to make sure that she succeeds. The two of them are a good team, and their relationship or marriage with each other is mutually beneficial on a professional level.
Historically it's not unusual to have political family dynasties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._political_families). Besides the Clintons there were: the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, and the Bushes. Family dynasties are a type of back-door monarchy supported in a democracy where monarchies are not recognized legally. Americans think of themselves as not having recognized monarchies since 1776-07-04. Yet the fascination of the public with celebrity, wealth, and name has helped support the continuation of the dynasties.
If Hillary Clinton were to become President in 2009, it would amount to at least 24 years of the Bush-Clinton dynasties spanning from 1989 to 2013. That is not a reason by itself not to support Hillary, but rather is amazing to consider how in a modern era where everything else has changed rapidly, how little would have changed in presidential leadership.
The public is wary of giving a new candidate the vote of confidence without certain credentials being in place; especially for high and powerful positions. One of those credentials can come from the family name or connections. Other credentials for the public can be: military service, other forms of public office or service, community activism, outstanding performance, or business credentials. Some credentials are considered to be more valuable or prestigious than others. U.S. Senators have more prestige than U.S. Representatives do because their terms are six years rather than two, and they represent an entire State rather than a singular Congressional district.
But sometimes there is such a thing as being too qualified or experienced when the experienced candidate is viewed as being a Washington insider who represents the status quo. In that case the less experienced candidate could have the advantage of personality and likability, and of representing change. Most people find Obama more likable and more believable than Clinton. Hillary is seen as calculating and dishonest.
Regarding experience, it is actually Hillary who has less experience (http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/) as an elected official than Obama does. She has seven years as a U. S. Senator; and Obama has a total of eleven years; eight years in the Illinois Senate and three years in the U. S. Senate.
Some time after Bush was reelected in 2004, some of us started thinking about the election in 2008 and actually realizing that there was light at the end of the tunnel, and that His Craptacularness would not be the president forever. And whatever person we thought of, it was such a joy to imagine that person being the President instead of Bush. That is because anybody other than Bush would be an improvement and we knew that things could only get better in 2009 with a new president.
Early on before I even knew anything about Obama, there had been speculation about Hillary running for president. That was because of the unexplained anomaly in 2000 of her being from Arkansas but choosing to be a Senator for New York, and speculation that a larger plan of hers was in place to seek the presidency and to use the Senate position as a stepping stone. During those early times of speculation, imagining Hillary as president, or anyone other than Bush, was a pleasant thought that I supported. Later on in 2007 when the presidential campaign season started, and Bush's days became fewer numbered, I was given more choices. And so when given choices and exposure to the candidates who were running, I became more picky and decided that I really wanted Obama to be president a lot more than I wanted Hillary. If the choice were instead Hillary versus Lieberman in the Democrat primary, I would probably be supportive of Hillary, out of contrast with Lieberman. But I would not be enthusiastic about her candidacy the way I am about Obama's.
I am not registered in any political party and I have no voting ability to influence the outcome of the Democrat primary. I can only vote my support in the general election in November 2008. In the primary season the Democrats ought to remember that the ultimate goal is to select a candidate who can win in the general election in November and not just appeal to the smaller world of Democrats in the primaries. Obama's support crosses party lines to non-Democrats, or other lines which can be drawn throughout America. Obama will be more electable in the general election because his appeal and political views are broader and less alienating than are those of Hillary's.
THE CAMPAIGN
It was almost three weeks ago that Obama came in first place in the Iowa caucus. After Iowa, people were speculating as to whether Hillary should stay in the race if she were to finish anywhere besides first place in the New Hampshire primary as well. Yet considering that they were only the first two states of many, that would be too early for anyone to drop out of the race. Afterwards there was the caucus January 19 in Nevada, and there will be an upcoming primary January 26 in South Carolina. Then on February 5, 22 states vote. After that point it would be reasonable for a candidate to drop out, but only if the results are really dismal for the candidate. Let us not forget that it really isn't over until June 3, when Montana and South Dakota hold their primaries.
The polls were wrong in their projection of Obama to come first place in the January 8 New Hampshire primary. It is heartening to see that pollsters and pundits can't know everything in advance, and that the people disregard such things when voting.
Regarding the choice of words as to whether a candidate wins or loses, those words seem inappropriate when the margins are close. In New Hampshire Obama had 36% of the vote as compared to 39% for Hillary. It's unlikely to expect that a candidate could come in first place in every state's contest, and if that were to happen the contest would be boring and uncompetitive.
In the January 19 Nevada caucus Obama had 45% of the popular vote as compared to 51% for Clinton. But Obama actually got 13 delegates while Clinton got 12, because his victory was more widespread geographically, demonstrating his strength to win in a general election. Obama has more appeal to independents and Republicans. And Obama has the power to create a large voter turnout because the people who vote for him are enthusiastic about him, and don't regard him merely as a lesser-of-two-evils candidate. Those people will go the extra effort to show up and vote for him on election day in November 2008. Normally there are many people who don't bother to vote or to register even when they are eligible to do so.
In 2000 Democrats felt in their hearts that Bill Bradley was the best candidate, but instead they followed the guidance of the pundits by choosing Al Gore. That failed. In 2004 Democrats felt in their hearts that Howard Dean was the best candidate, but instead they followed the guidance of the pundits by choosing John Kerry (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=276). That failed. I'm hoping that this time around in 2008, that the Democrats don't a similar mistake and choose Hillary over Obama to be the presidential candidate.
RACIAL FACTOR
I've heard some doubt that America would vote for a Black president. Since Obama is biracial, it would be just as inaccurate to say that he is the first Black president as it would be to say that he is the forty-fourth White president. The term "African-American" that is used to describe all people who are brown-skinned, applies well to Obama because his father is African and his mother is American. I don't like "Black" and "White" as racial descriptions and prefer "brown-skinned" or "beige-skinned".
The racial factor will work both ways as it will cause Obama to lose some support as well as gain some support. Pundits can try to easily write off entire populations and take them for granted. For example; it's been said that Obama will get the brown-skinned vote or Hillary will get the female vote. But people vote as individuals rather than as a voting bloc. Otherwise they become predictable, marginalized, and taken for granted. And no one has the endorsement authority to speak for any community to say which way that person's community will vote.
GENDER FACTOR
Since Hillary has been in the White House she has had many people who dislike her. Some of the hatred towards her has been because she is a strong outspoken woman. I myself thought that was the biggest reason for people disliking her when she was in the White House as First Lady. This is what Hillary said regarding her unpopularity in an interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html) with Ted Koppel 1992-03-26:
"I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."
When people feel the attacks on a candidate are unfair or inappropriate, they are more inclined to support the candidate out of sympathy. Attacks on Hillary which are perceived to be motivated by misogyny will backfire and actually increase the support for her. That will be the case even when the Obama camp is not the originator of such attacks.
That being said, to accuse Hillary's critics as all being misogynists would be similar to accusing all of Obama's critics as being racists. In some cases it is true and other cases it's not. But it doesn't matter what the motivation is, and one could spend a long time wondering what the motivations of one's critics are. Instead only the substance of the criticisms needs to be addressed.
A lot has changed in one year. Now we have Hillary running for President; and Bill, her legal husband, having fits (http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385) of rage, charm, and arm twisting to make sure that she succeeds. The two of them are a good team, and their relationship or marriage with each other is mutually beneficial on a professional level.
Historically it's not unusual to have political family dynasties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._political_families). Besides the Clintons there were: the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, and the Bushes. Family dynasties are a type of back-door monarchy supported in a democracy where monarchies are not recognized legally. Americans think of themselves as not having recognized monarchies since 1776-07-04. Yet the fascination of the public with celebrity, wealth, and name has helped support the continuation of the dynasties.
If Hillary Clinton were to become President in 2009, it would amount to at least 24 years of the Bush-Clinton dynasties spanning from 1989 to 2013. That is not a reason by itself not to support Hillary, but rather is amazing to consider how in a modern era where everything else has changed rapidly, how little would have changed in presidential leadership.
The public is wary of giving a new candidate the vote of confidence without certain credentials being in place; especially for high and powerful positions. One of those credentials can come from the family name or connections. Other credentials for the public can be: military service, other forms of public office or service, community activism, outstanding performance, or business credentials. Some credentials are considered to be more valuable or prestigious than others. U.S. Senators have more prestige than U.S. Representatives do because their terms are six years rather than two, and they represent an entire State rather than a singular Congressional district.
But sometimes there is such a thing as being too qualified or experienced when the experienced candidate is viewed as being a Washington insider who represents the status quo. In that case the less experienced candidate could have the advantage of personality and likability, and of representing change. Most people find Obama more likable and more believable than Clinton. Hillary is seen as calculating and dishonest.
Regarding experience, it is actually Hillary who has less experience (http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/) as an elected official than Obama does. She has seven years as a U. S. Senator; and Obama has a total of eleven years; eight years in the Illinois Senate and three years in the U. S. Senate.
Some time after Bush was reelected in 2004, some of us started thinking about the election in 2008 and actually realizing that there was light at the end of the tunnel, and that His Craptacularness would not be the president forever. And whatever person we thought of, it was such a joy to imagine that person being the President instead of Bush. That is because anybody other than Bush would be an improvement and we knew that things could only get better in 2009 with a new president.
Early on before I even knew anything about Obama, there had been speculation about Hillary running for president. That was because of the unexplained anomaly in 2000 of her being from Arkansas but choosing to be a Senator for New York, and speculation that a larger plan of hers was in place to seek the presidency and to use the Senate position as a stepping stone. During those early times of speculation, imagining Hillary as president, or anyone other than Bush, was a pleasant thought that I supported. Later on in 2007 when the presidential campaign season started, and Bush's days became fewer numbered, I was given more choices. And so when given choices and exposure to the candidates who were running, I became more picky and decided that I really wanted Obama to be president a lot more than I wanted Hillary. If the choice were instead Hillary versus Lieberman in the Democrat primary, I would probably be supportive of Hillary, out of contrast with Lieberman. But I would not be enthusiastic about her candidacy the way I am about Obama's.
I am not registered in any political party and I have no voting ability to influence the outcome of the Democrat primary. I can only vote my support in the general election in November 2008. In the primary season the Democrats ought to remember that the ultimate goal is to select a candidate who can win in the general election in November and not just appeal to the smaller world of Democrats in the primaries. Obama's support crosses party lines to non-Democrats, or other lines which can be drawn throughout America. Obama will be more electable in the general election because his appeal and political views are broader and less alienating than are those of Hillary's.
THE CAMPAIGN
It was almost three weeks ago that Obama came in first place in the Iowa caucus. After Iowa, people were speculating as to whether Hillary should stay in the race if she were to finish anywhere besides first place in the New Hampshire primary as well. Yet considering that they were only the first two states of many, that would be too early for anyone to drop out of the race. Afterwards there was the caucus January 19 in Nevada, and there will be an upcoming primary January 26 in South Carolina. Then on February 5, 22 states vote. After that point it would be reasonable for a candidate to drop out, but only if the results are really dismal for the candidate. Let us not forget that it really isn't over until June 3, when Montana and South Dakota hold their primaries.
The polls were wrong in their projection of Obama to come first place in the January 8 New Hampshire primary. It is heartening to see that pollsters and pundits can't know everything in advance, and that the people disregard such things when voting.
Regarding the choice of words as to whether a candidate wins or loses, those words seem inappropriate when the margins are close. In New Hampshire Obama had 36% of the vote as compared to 39% for Hillary. It's unlikely to expect that a candidate could come in first place in every state's contest, and if that were to happen the contest would be boring and uncompetitive.
In the January 19 Nevada caucus Obama had 45% of the popular vote as compared to 51% for Clinton. But Obama actually got 13 delegates while Clinton got 12, because his victory was more widespread geographically, demonstrating his strength to win in a general election. Obama has more appeal to independents and Republicans. And Obama has the power to create a large voter turnout because the people who vote for him are enthusiastic about him, and don't regard him merely as a lesser-of-two-evils candidate. Those people will go the extra effort to show up and vote for him on election day in November 2008. Normally there are many people who don't bother to vote or to register even when they are eligible to do so.
In 2000 Democrats felt in their hearts that Bill Bradley was the best candidate, but instead they followed the guidance of the pundits by choosing Al Gore. That failed. In 2004 Democrats felt in their hearts that Howard Dean was the best candidate, but instead they followed the guidance of the pundits by choosing John Kerry (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=276). That failed. I'm hoping that this time around in 2008, that the Democrats don't a similar mistake and choose Hillary over Obama to be the presidential candidate.
RACIAL FACTOR
I've heard some doubt that America would vote for a Black president. Since Obama is biracial, it would be just as inaccurate to say that he is the first Black president as it would be to say that he is the forty-fourth White president. The term "African-American" that is used to describe all people who are brown-skinned, applies well to Obama because his father is African and his mother is American. I don't like "Black" and "White" as racial descriptions and prefer "brown-skinned" or "beige-skinned".
The racial factor will work both ways as it will cause Obama to lose some support as well as gain some support. Pundits can try to easily write off entire populations and take them for granted. For example; it's been said that Obama will get the brown-skinned vote or Hillary will get the female vote. But people vote as individuals rather than as a voting bloc. Otherwise they become predictable, marginalized, and taken for granted. And no one has the endorsement authority to speak for any community to say which way that person's community will vote.
GENDER FACTOR
Since Hillary has been in the White House she has had many people who dislike her. Some of the hatred towards her has been because she is a strong outspoken woman. I myself thought that was the biggest reason for people disliking her when she was in the White House as First Lady. This is what Hillary said regarding her unpopularity in an interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html) with Ted Koppel 1992-03-26:
"I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."
When people feel the attacks on a candidate are unfair or inappropriate, they are more inclined to support the candidate out of sympathy. Attacks on Hillary which are perceived to be motivated by misogyny will backfire and actually increase the support for her. That will be the case even when the Obama camp is not the originator of such attacks.
That being said, to accuse Hillary's critics as all being misogynists would be similar to accusing all of Obama's critics as being racists. In some cases it is true and other cases it's not. But it doesn't matter what the motivation is, and one could spend a long time wondering what the motivations of one's critics are. Instead only the substance of the criticisms needs to be addressed.