On many domestic fronts Hilary Clinton is an excellent candidate for President of the United States. Her mastery of policy and apparent ability to run a large scale operation efficiently are impressive. It is also reasonable to believe that she has an intellectual marriage to her ideas and will fight to see them carried out. Overall, the domestic agendas of both Clinton and Obama are largely similar. There is reason to believe that both will make responsible jury selections, stand up for civil rights in a broad sense and work toward improving the horrendous Education system. There is also reason to believe that the difference between "Universal Coverage" and "Universal Access" will prove to be a wash on the Health Care issue. But there are large differences between the two Democratic candidates and it is because of these differences that Nat Creole is endorsing Barack Obama for president.
One of the great mysteries of the campaign is Clinton’s insistence on promoting her “35 years of experience.” The “Ready on Day 1” claim has become the Clinton campaign’s battle cry but the nature of this experience is left largely unexplained. On the basis of legislative experience, she has actually put in fewer hours than Obama has. If she is talking about civic concern and taking action as a concerned citizen than there may be few people in the political arena who have ostensibly given more of their lives to public affairs than Hilary Clinton but this alone does not translate into being an effective President. Finally, if she is laying claim to her husband's presidency, then she must also take responsibility for caving in to big media with the Telecommunications Act, selling out to the banks with the Financial Services Modernization Act, passing NAFTA legislation without the controls that could have stopped it from becoming a boondoggle for corporate interests, and presiding over the insane growth of the prison industrial complex (three strikes and you’re out baby). Furthermore, unlike her husband, Hilary’s visceral connection to the populace hasn’t been substantiated and the Clintons’ tie to lobbyists and corporate interests is a faucet that can’t turn off.
And though it is not implicitly clear that she is too divisive to win the general, it is unlikely that she will be able to win an election against John McCain if she has to compete for independent voters. Clinton’s triangulist philosophy and ability to shed progressive ideas for political expediency with ease has turned off a large number of democrats and progressive leaning independents. Add to this the irrational hatred of Clinton that those on the right (and in the media) have harbored for years and you have a recipe for disaster. Even if Clinton were to win the general election, it is highly probable that the considerable opposition to her as a person and a political brand will result in the reinvigoration of the Republican Party and the Democrats losing Congress in the 2010 elections. At the very least, she will be operating from the vantage point of an extremely slim majority, in both public sentiment and political power, and will have great difficulty in enacting her agenda.
But, by far, the most disturbing aspect of Hilary Clinton’s campaign is the subversive nature of her foreign policy. It is not clear if the Clintons will be significantly different from the Bush administration in international affairs. Clinton’s Senate votes and legislative posture have been generally hawkish and ideologically supportive of the neo-con derived idea of transforming the Middle East through imperial force. Much has been made of her support of the Iraq invasion but it is direly important not to minimize the significance of her vote, and continued vocal support until at least 2005, for the immoral and illegal war and her recent vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which gave the Bush administration leeway in crafting a similar type of affront on Iran. Clinton initially argued against the execution of the Iraq war and not the illegality or the inhumanity of the war. Only after it was clear that this was the worst decision in the history of American foreign policy did she change her tune. Either Clinton shares the neo-con affinity for forcing change through lies, deceit and gun-powder or she was bamboozled by the Bushies, a disturbing notion that flies in the face of her claims of being the far more experience candidate.
Conversely, look to Obama’s involvement in the current crisis in Kenya. Though running a physically and intellectually draining national campaign, Obama has found time to be intimately involved in finding a resolution to an issue that threatens to engulf all of Africa. Imagine if Obama had the full resources of the American government to help find solutions to such geopolitical conflicts. The opportunity to have a President of the United States that has developed an international perspective from having actually lived overseas and can offer this face to the rest of the world is unprecedented. Obama nails it perfectly when he argues that it is not only important to end the Iraq war but make certain that the mindset that allowed the war to happen in the first place ends as well. That is the kind of sentiment that the United States desperately needs to have in the White House if it is to repair its tattered image. It is about judgment.
If you want clues as to how an Obama administration would operate on the domestic front, look to his fundraising prowess and expert use of technology to reach voters and spread his message. One of the better results of the Clinton administration was an emphasis on technology, but given his campaign's brilliant use of online communication and viral marketing there is reason to believe that an Obama administration will expound on the importance of technological advancement. His acknowledgement and effective use of the channels of communication that are heavily favored today by a new generation of voters, such as social networks like Facebook and youtube, and his expansion of the online outreach efforts spearheaded by the Howard Dean campaign in 2004 point to a technological savvy that is imperative to running any effective operation. He has done a masterful job of maximizing this capability.
The Clintons are a money-making machine but Obama is the next level. With over 650,000 donors, Obama has defied the concept that the big money of entrenched interests is the only way a candidate can raise the money necessary for winning the nation’s highest office. Encouraging small contributions has created a fundraising base that can keep giving over an extended period of time thus ensuring that money will be available when money is needed most. This supplements the funds he has raised from his donor base, which consists of a well financed and rainbow hued group of supporters and allows him to talk convincingly of an administration that is not beholden to lobbyists. This is integral to any talk of change in the conduct of American politics.
|
