I personally would rather have a flawed First Black U.S. President than no First Black U.S. President at all. I figure, even an imperfect First Black U.S. President at least destroys that barrier, this insidious and ignorant unkillable stupidity about race. That's good for the country long-term, whether the First Black U.S. President is any good at his job or not (and our president gets mixed reviews from me).
I find it baffling that women, especially white women, seem to be so amazingly ignorant about this first real opportunity to destroy yet another barrier– this insidious and ignorant unkillable stupidity about gender. Were I a woman, I'd rather have a flawed First Female U.S. President than no First Female U.S. President at all. I figure, even an imperfect First Female U.S. President at least destroys that barrier.
Putting all the rah-rah noise aside just for a moment: stepping back, way back away from all the hoopla and rhetoric, it really is hard to argue that Hillary Clinton isn't the most qualified candidate–of either party–running. Most any argument to the contrary is mostly overheated emotional rhetorical ideology: she's got the resume, period.
I think Bernie Sanders is the stronger candidate but would make a less effective president. I think Hillary Clinton is a very weak candidate who has astoundingly failed to land a cohesive banner message, and her grating, patronizing "I'm With Her!" and "Get Your Woman Card" ads are a mistake, but I believe she's be a more effective president because, let's face it, she's much more like a liberal Republican than a conservative Democrat.
One of President Obama's great weaknesses is his aloofness; his unwillingness to schmooze or hang out with the unsavory types who run Washington. Hillary practically rooms with these people. Now, that's both good and bad, but I believe the president–like him or not–is at least partially responsible for the gridlock going on in Washington.
These people *hate* Hillary, but I believe Hillary knows where the bodies are buried and is demonstrably much more willing to get down in the mud with those folks and make deals. Nobody will get everything they want, but I have hope that there will at least be some small progress.
Americans have grown accustomed to a zero-sum game. Nobody wants to compromise. It's really sad.
I sincerely doubt Bernie Sanders will govern the way he campaigns. First of all, nobody does. If Sanders governs the way he campaigns, we'll have four more years of nothing because every single one of his over-the-moon campaign promises–taken seriously mostly by low-information voters–will be dead on arrival at Congress.
So either Bernie is lying to us or lying to himself. Either way is unhealthy for the country. Between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I'd take Hillary any day of the week and twice on Sunday. But I feel Democrats, and perhaps the American public at larger, seem to be blaming Hillary because other qualified Dems didn't run (Biden).
In any case, I'll be supporting Hillary. Nobody seems to be excited about her, and that's kind of her own fault: she's running a pretty dull and ideologically stillborn campaign. But I *am* excited about the notion of the first female U.S. president.
I don't know that America needs Hillary Clinton, but America *desperately* needs this moment: breaking this barrier. Everybody's trying to downplay Clinton's gender. I think, no, I *know* it's historic. And far too many of us–men and women–are lining up on the wrong side of history.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 18th, 2016 at 9:30 am	and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I don't for a moment buy the argument that Hillary Clinton — the person who the Republicans have been treating as the boogeyman for the past 25 years — is going to be the person to break the gridlock in Washington. (And while I prefer Bernie, no, I'm not saying he could do it either.)
Republicans are not going to be lining up to star in 2018 primary ads that start with a scary voice saying "Senator Joe Blow voted with Hillary Clinton to…" I just dont see that happening. Whitewater, Travelgate, Benghazi, the e-mail server, conspiracy theories that she's a closet lesbian who had Vince Foster murdered, and then compromise that leads to meaningful legislation being passed? I do not see that as a likely progression. We'll be lucky if we can pass a damn budget. The gridlock's here to stay, at least until the next census. And even then, gerrymandering's bad enough that the Republicans may well keep the House, and maybe the Senate besides.
I acknowledge she'll be better than Trump, and I don't blame anyone who's going to vote for her. But as it stands, I figure I'll be voting Jill Stein for the second election running. Unless Clinton picks Sanders or Warren or somebody else I really like as a running-mate.
I might feel differently if I were in a swing state, but I'm in Arizona. Maybe if October rolls around and somebody can produce polling data that convinces me there's somehow a legitimate possibility that Clinton might win here without already having Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in the bag. I'm not sure how that's demographically possible, but given that Donald Trump is now the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, it's safe to say that stranger things have happened this election.
Sadly, you are quite right. The number one thing most politicians care about is keeping their jobs. They demonstrably don't give a flying damn about the public good, hence all the pandering to ignorance. Refusing to make progress or help someone just because they're afraid some primary opponent will use their cooperation w/a hypothetical President Clinton against them is well beyond childish.
And yet that is the world we live in. The Republicans get vilified because they have, frankly, elevated this kind of foolishness to rare and unprecedented heights. But I can also imagine Dems refusing to cooperate with a hypothetical President Trump.
Watching Rachel Maddow's interview with former Sen Tim Kaine, whom Maddow identifies as a possible Clinton running mate. Sadly, I believe this thing has become *such* a circus that thinking, rational people are in the extreme minority of voters of both parties. Clinton really can't make a rational choice. If she wants to unite the party, she has to tap Bernie or Warren, period, and I'm not sure either like her very much or want the job.
Bernie demonstrates a ribald contempt for the Democratic party while using their resources as his platform for running for president–which seems exceptionally hypocritical to me. Likewise, Mr. Trump really isn't even pretending to be much of a conservative. Neither man has anything at stake politically: this is Bernie's shot and he knows it. What does he care if he takes down the party? And I seriously doubt Trump ever dreamed he'd actually get this far. Neither candidate has shown any interest whatsoever in downballot races.
Ironically, style over substance virtually defined the Age of Obama in '08. In '12 the GOP ran a really weak candidate most of their base wasn't excited about. I think this time around it's the Dems who aren't all that excited, and I defy anyone to tell me what Clinton's core message is.
Whatever else you think of Trump, you've gotta admit the guy has run an incredibly smart campaign of looking like an a-hole and not caring about it. I know what his message is, I know what Bernie's message is. I'm still voting for Hillary.
But, you're right: I think we get gridlock no matter what.
Oh, and Hillary would never have gotten rope-a-doped on healthcare the way Obama did.
Politics are in a tribalistic phase, like sports teams. Our team rules, your team sucks, ignore our 3-24 record against your team.