Vote totals:
Yes:
40%
No:
40%
Neutral:
20%
DEBATE: HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT FOR AMERICA
HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT FOR AMERICA
Hillary has far more experience than Obama
Hillary Clinton is now one of America’s most seasoned national politicians, having been at her husband’s side during his 8 year term in the White House, and having been a member of the US Senate for the last 8 years. She has developed a strong grasp of policy-issues, understands how the American political system works, and how to work at different levels of government, as well as how to reach out across party-lines.
Barack Obama offers a new voice in Washington, one not as beholden to the lobbyists and the special-interest groups which block change.
Obama is the candidate for change. His popularity is due in no small part to people’s overwhelming desire for a new kind of politics.
Therefore, Clinton’s experience does not do her favours; in fact it works against her since people want something different, not more of the same.
In addition, just what kind of experience does Clinton actually have? We surely can’t count her time as First Lady, not least because she’s shown herself so willing to exaggerate her influence. Obama has just as many years in politics and has enacted many different bills. What’s more, he has been consistent throughout his time in politics whereas Clinton seems willing to be blown in whichever way she thinks the political wind is heading.
HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT FOR AMERICA
It is time we saw our first woman president
The race is about more than which candidate would deliver more results. It is also about symbols.
Both candidates represent constituencies that have historically been largely excluded from the political process. Blacks gained the vote in 1870 when Congress passed the 15th Amendment; women had to wait much longer till 1920, when the 19th Amendment was passed.
Hillary represents the first real chance that a woman can enter this office, carrying the dreams of millions of home-makers, working-mothers, young women, and feminists on her back.
No one can deny that the Afro-American minority in the States has suffered greatly. Even after slavery was abolished after the Civil War, blacks continued to be oppressed under Jim Crowe legislation. They had less access to education, to jobs, a poorer chance of getting a fair trial, of finding suitable housing, and continue to make up a disproportionately large percentage of the US prison population.
Electing Obama would be one way of showing that the country wants to overcome this history of hatred and suspicion. It would also put someone at the top who knows what it is like to undergo such discrimination.
HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT FOR AMERICA
Hillary has the better team
Hillary still has the Washington political-elite behind her. She can count upon their expertise, upon her husband’s diplomatic credentials, upon loyal staff from the previous White House administration, and upon her many contacts developed through eight years in the White House and another eight in the senate.
Barack brings many talented people with him, including his colleagues from law-school. In fact, many seasoned politicians such as Edward Kennedy and John Kerrey have joined forces with him, so clearly he can attract seasoned politicians and recruit them to his cause.
HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT FOR AMERICA
Hillary can face up to the Republicans better
Although Obama has been winning among Democrats, there is no guarantee that right-of-centre voters will vote for a black candidate.
The election has been pretty mild till now, but once the Republicans begin mud-slinging, Obama’s racial and ethnic background will become a big issue. John McCain will portray himself as the blue-blooded American patriot vs. a candidate who wants to call back American troops and comes from a multi-ethnic, multi-religious family.
Actually, the Republicans love to hate the Clintons. They would be back in force to taunt them with reminders of the Lewinsky scandal, her famous remark about staying home and baking cookies, Clinton’s pardon of the financier Marc Rich, etc. etc.
The race would only get uglier, ending up polarizing Americans which is the last thing anyone needs right now.
HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT FOR AMERICA
Clinton does not represent young Americans
But do young Americans vote? They have been conspicuously absent from past elections. Although they helped Howard Dean make waves initially as the most left-of-centre candidate, their enthusiasm quickly evaporated. Younger voters are more likely to be moved by opinion, and, ultimately, care less about issues such as taxes, healthcare, and housing. Their contribution is as much an identity-statement as about serious political goals.
While Clinton still represents the conventional voter, doing especially well among older men and women, Obama has been extremely successful in getting young Americans to vote for him. He has been responsible for galvanizing a new generation of Americans to think about political issues and to contribute their time and effort to his campaign.
In the long run, this could help revitalize the American polity, bringing fresh ideas, talent, and new faces into it. A political system which is still tuned to the interests of the baby-boomer generation cannot understand the needs of the new generation, and the challenges they face.
HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT FOR AMERICA
Clinton often comes across as ambitious and arrogant
Obama is equally arrogant, claiming that small-town Americans cling to guns and religion out of "bitterness." He thinks very highly of himself, has a brusque manner with advisors which reminds one of the worst moments of George W. Bush’s presidency.
Although Clinton waited 8 years to make her bid, Obama did not even wait out his first senate term. He saw his chance at the top-job and took it, in spite of the fact that Clinton had more experience and had initially coached him as a new senate member. Other senate members report that Barack began thinking about the presidency from day 1, devoting more time to raising money for other senate members’ re-election campaigns and making friends, than he spent on legislative matters.
Clinton’s present crisis, where she trails Obama by over 100 delegates, is her own creation. Her campaign-team presented her as the inevitable choice, ignoring the smaller caucuses and hoping to win on the strength of the big states alone.
They thought they could arm-twist donors and supporters who lacked a credible alternative. Her former campaign-manager, Patti Solis Doyle, spent over 30 million dollars of donors’ contributions on her NY state re-election campaign, although Hillary did not have a serious contender.
Such mistakes have cost Clinton dearly. She overlooked the fact that individual donors are, propelled through the internet, becoming a big new force in American politics, that the internet has made American democracy more open and diffuse, and that as a result big media companies no longer have the power to "make or break" a candidate.
HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT FOR AMERICA
Obama is not beholden to the lobbyists
Obama’s clean-image is largely the consequence of the fact that he is new. We don’t know what he will be like a few years down the line. He may turn out to be just like the others.
There is also the issue with Tony Rezko, where Obama has been less than candid about the closeness of his contact with the corrupt financier.
Unlike Clinton, Obama has stayed away from lobby-groups, helped by the fact that his tenure in the senate has been brief. Thus, he owes them less. He has financed his campaign mostly through small contributions made over the internet, so he does not owe big companies favours. He has been pushing for a reform of the US campaign-finance regulations.
HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT FOR AMERICA
Clinton presidency will mean 20 years of two families controlling the USA
The families have experience. They have knowledge. The presidents have been voted in because they were the most suitable candidate for the job.
We must also remember that McCain may win the election
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?
Do you really want more of the same? This era has resulted in a much richer upper class and the poverty gap in relative earnings between rich and poor has increased more than at any other time in history. This is not a coincidence.
Furthermore, Clinton and Bush both attend meetings such as the bilderberg group which run counter to ideas about democratic process. They are for the SPP and the NAU which run counter to American sovereignty. Clinton has no substance and is all gimmick, a classic example would be the gas rebate ploy she used a couple weeks ago (which would not help poorer families, and that no economist agreed with).
Essentially, I don’t like any of the three ‘candidates’ that we have a ‘choice’ between (Obama, Clinton, McCain) as they ALL will increase taxes for the average American.
In fact, the National Tax Payers Union reported that he ONLY candidate that would save ANY taxes for the average American would be Republican candidate Ron Paul. Ron Paul also calls for an end to the income tax, the Federal Reserve and the IRS. He will also get the troops out of Iraq immediately. Indeed, Paul has received more money from active military personnel than ANY other candidate. Ron Paul is still running and his campaign has received the MOST money for ANY candidate from grassroots supporters (average American Citizens) than anyone in history. Yet most people do not know who this guy is… thanks to the mainstream media (which is owned by the super class which has benefited most from the last 20 plus years of BUSH/CLINTON presidency. This is also not a coincidence.
Essentially, the election so far has been politics as usual. Distracting the attention away from the real issues which are destroying America such as the Federal Reserve, the IRS and the Income Tax.
Please watch ‘America: Freedom to Fascism’ by Aaron Russo for more. It’s free on google video.