Feb 25
It’s a strange thing to suggest to people why they should support a candidate for whom you, yourself, would never, even in your most drunken/wasted moment, consider voting for. But hey, 2008 is a crazy place. Barack or Hillary? Whether I like it or not, one of these two could conceivably become the 44th president of the United States. Therefore, it behooves me to root for the candidate that has the stuffins to be the best leader should they — eeek — be elected.
That candidate is Hillary Clinton. And no, it’s not because I think she’ll be easier to beat in November.
I’m a Republican so I won’t bother with weighing policy points as I disagree with both of them. Their capacity for leadership is the common denominator from which I can choose.
There is a lot of discussion about whether Hillary is tough enough to be president or just being tough because she’s a girl at the boy’s club and can’t pee on the fence. I don’t think either is true. From what I’ve observed — and it kills me to say this — she has proven herself to be both cautious and methodical in her decision making; sometimes to a fault.
While I disagree with most of her conclusions, she has always recognized the dangers posed in the world. Compare that with Obama. The more you listen to him speak on foreign affairs the more you sense he really does equate the world stage as nothing more than a Chicago community organization project. That kind of naiveté isn’t just bad politics; it’s dangerous.
Hillary has both the maturity and sobriety of experience to understand that rhetoric is rhetoric and policy is policy. I find it highly unlikely that she would, for example, go off the deep end and enact something as crazy as price controls just because it made a good applause line in a speech. I can’t say the same for Obama.
Finally, beyond all of the flowery language and puffy platitudes Obama isn’t really offering anything new. Don’t believe me? Read over his policy papers and then read Hillary’s; talk about Xerox. All of this schmaltz about change/hope/faith/whatever is just marketing. I think that is the thing that disturbs me the most about Obamapalooza. It’s all emotion. Call me crazy, but I’ll take thinking over emoting any day.
So vote Hillary on March 4th. Consider this my little shot of compassionate conservatism. Just because we opted for the grape kool-aid by nominating someone who isn’t sure if he is a Republican or not doesn’t mean you all have to submit to crazy. We live in challenging times. The next president faces problems that can’t be wished away.
Hell, most of them won’t have a sunny feel-good solution, no matter what the speechwriter says. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is the only adult in the race. For the Love of Grey Goose, folks, don’t send a boy to do a (wo)man’s job.
There, I’ve done it. I’ve done the impossible. I’ve said nice things about Hillary. I think I’ve earned several grey goose martinis and even more nasty e-mails. God Bless America!
The trackback URL is here.
“For the Love of Grey Goose, folks, don’t send a boy to do a (wo)man’s job.”
Barack Obama is 47 years old and will be 48 by inauguration day. Bill Clinton was 46. JFK was 44.
Whatever we think about Obama I think we can all agree that sometimes calendar age is not the best judge of maturity … otherwise we’d make Hugh Heffner the President
http://txgop4obama.blogspot.com/
Re: 1. Tickled Pink
August 4, 1961 — doesn’t that make him 46?
I hate to go all 20th century on you, but I’d avoid referring to an African-American man, regardless of his age, as a “boy.” I know you meant nothing by it and it was unintentional, but that word carries a lot of baggage in that context.
Re: 2. Jimbo
“calendar age is not the best judge of maturity … otherwise we’d make Hugh Heffner the President”
or maybe even !@#$#!* Ralph Nader.
http://www.showlush.com
Re: 4. whiskeydent
Look at you, bein’ all PC and shi*t. ; )
Doc–would you “settle” for Tito’s based martinis?
Re: 3. NOITALL
Oh, close enough. Doesn’t change my point.
/math is hard
Re: 6. lush
This will be fixed about drink:30.
People desperate for “change” or a “new way” don’t historically elect the best leaders…that’s what makes me uncomfortable about Obamamania.
Even though it’s not considered the cool vote in my demographic, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman, but because she has policies to back up the rhetoric.
/and I guess I never said I was cool
http://www.inthepinktexas.com
Re: 7. Tickled Pink
I honestly read that as “doesn’t change my pinot.”
I do believe it’s wine o’clock. OMG! LOL!
http://www.showlush.com
Re: 8. whiskeydent
Or in your next post, whichever comes first.
/it’s better if they come together
//WHAT?!
Re: 9. ginger rogers
Here’s where I bristle. Have you read up on any of Obama’s ideas? As he said in his speech last week, “I’ve got 10 point plans all over the place. Five point plans. Eight point plans.”
Just because he doesnt stand in front of a crowd of 10,000 and dork out over the finer points of his economic package doesn’t mean he doesn’t have one.
What you’re doing righ tnow, Ginger Rogers, is spouting the line that’s “cool.” That Obama doesn’t have the policy to back up the flowerly language.
Where are people GETTING that? Do some research, I beg you.
Now, if you’ve done the research and don’t LIKE his policies, that’s something I can respect and live with. But because he chooses his in-person appearances to fire people up, that makes him empty?? Come on.
here IS WHY I AM voting for HILLARY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dvUfEpaPOls
http://theplantsaresmarter.blogspot.com
Re: 13. MARIA
I love it. Thank you. Women rights are human rights. I voted for her and I don’t regret it. I do wish her campaign was running more smoothly, but what can I do. Anyway, I love her.
Re: 12. Lurkette
I am sorry, I did not mean to offend, but who said I had not done any research? I have no issue with those who are voting Obama because they’ve done the research and believe he’s the candidate for them. Do I believe his policies are as sound or well thought out? No. Do I believe Hillary is more likely to deliver on her rhetoric? Yes. He is a solid candidate, but I haven’t seen much defense of his policies during the debates either (and I would argue that is the platform in which he should be doing so). That doesn’t mean I won’t pull the lever for Obama in November if he’s the nominee, and it doesn’t mean I don’t respect those who think he should be.
What I take issue with is this Obamamania, a fever that seems to have quickly swept across our state (/fair city) which has nothing to do with the candidate’s policies and everything to do with rhetoric. What makes me uncomfortable about it is that some of the people (particularly younger voters – I am mid-20s) who have readily joined this movement seem to have little understanding of his policies, or what he stands for, except for “change.” Hillary is fighting a worthy candidate, but also a cool trend, and I guess that’s what disappoints me.
Re: 15. ginger rogers
I’m gonna echo Ginger here..What gets me about BHO’s rhetoric/plans is that they seem so ‘pie-in-the-sky’..and maybe im just too damn cynical to buy it.
In his ads, he talks about:
- “Changing Washington”;
-”Getting rid of the Lobbyists”;
- “Closing Business Tax Loopholes”;
- “Tax credits for all working families” (what’s a ‘working’ family?)
And im sorry…to me these, yes, are just words, that ring more like empty promises…To me, HRC’s plans are more substantive, more meaningful, more realistic.
Give BHO all the credit in the world for energizing the party. I just think HRC is, at this point in time, better suited (insert tired pant-suit joke here) and better prepared for the job.
Re: 15. ginger rogers
I appreciate the answer and respect that, for you, it’s about policy. I think.
But here’s what I don’t get – why do people automatically assume that “Obamamaniacs” haven’t read the policies? You’re saying here, point blank, that “this fever has nothing to do with the candidate’s policies and everything to do with rhetoric.”
What if – and I know this might be a radical thought – the feverish in question actually HAVE read the policies and happen to like them better? Why the underestimation?
What if, for example, they don’t like the idea of mandated universal health insurance and would rather see the costs brought down before they’re forced to buy it? What if their only issue is the war and they prefer to go with someone who stuck his neck out against it – as best he could, anyway, given what little power he had? They’re excited, yes, zealous, sure, young and inexperienced, definitely. But THAT means they’re uninformed? Because they disagree with you, that means they haven’t researched it? With respect, that’s a pretty arrogant way to look at it. That’s not giving a lot of credit to the intelligent lot of people who have stood with him – like Rep. Mark Strama and that group.
I mean, at the very least, they’re choosing a Democrat. They’ve got to know SOMETHING about the policies, or they’d all be in Huckabee’s camp because he plays guitar.
Then again, that seems to be the argument of a lot of Obama critics. These people agree with Obama, so they must not know what they’re talking about. They must just think it’s cool. That argument goes on every single day around here.
Let’s turn it around – why is Voting For Cool any worse than Voting for Woman if, in either case, that’s the only reason for that vote? How does your argument weigh against all these people coming on here and saying that WE’RE WOMEN, WE SHOULD VOTE FOR THE WOMAN?! Can you spare a little admonishment for them, too?
This isn’t high school. The person who wins the “popularity contest” shouldn’t automatically be assumed vapid and unsuited to be the class president. In politics, occasionally, the most popular person may also be the best leader.
Re: 15. ginger rogers
A year ago I had similar feelings about Hillarinevitability that you now have about Obamamania.