Why Hillary? (part 2)

January 28, 2008

by Heidi

Why Part 2?

Since finishing and polishing up my last post, I’ve had a number of new things come to mind (which always seems to happen), and also thought about what was missing from the first post that I’d intended to put in. So I figured instead of editing the original, I’d write a sequel — hopefully one that won’t be so long as the first!

I’ll begin by clarifying that I am NOT a Democrat. I can see how it may appear from my last post that I am one, since I only mentioned my choices between Hillary and Barack. I began my political life as a Republican, changed some years later to Democrat after seeing how petty and hard-hearted the GOP was, and a while later I saw that the Democratic party wasn’t much better. I toyed with the idea of joining the Libertarian party, but then I decided I didn’t want to be affiliated with or limited by any one party, since there were components of all the parties I agreed with. It seems to me that as well-meaning as a political party starts out, after a certain amount of time the party becomes more important than the people they are supposed to represent.

The one thing I am against is the war in Iraq. In my mind, the way this was executed and bungled has adversely affected countless lives when it didn’t have to be that way. Certainly Saddam Hussein was a nasty, cruel dictator, but there are cruel dictators in many other countries we don’t feel the need to bomb and take out. Some of them are even our “allies.” I could go on and on about how I feel about this war, but I don’t want my ADD to get me off track! My point is that all of the Republican candidates — except for one — are proponents of the Iraq war and of keeping our young men and women there indefinitely. I respect Dr. Paul’s vision of getting America back to its constitutional roots, but many of his beliefs are either too radical to make actual change or they discount the majority of Americans who have spent their entire lives accustomed to the system that he won’t be able to win the nomination. He is well-suited to congress, to keep fighting the good Constitutional fight from within that body.

So after a lot of research over the past year of all the candidates, I was pretty much left with the Democrats who now remain. I really liked most of them, but now the top contenders are Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, like it or not.

The reason I didn’t mention John Edwards in my previous article is that I have ruled him out as President. I have a lot of respect and admiration for him, because he is such a leader on social issues that I care deeply about, but unfortunately he has pigeonholed himself to only represent the poor and disenfranchised; that is his whole platform, it seems. He hasn’t spent a lot of time talking about other issues that affect the country, issues that are just as important as solving poverty. I don’t know what all the departments and roles in the government are, but I would hope that Edwards gets placed as the head of some department where he can make a difference in this area.

I’d also like to make it clear that if Obama is the nominee, I will not be at all disappointed. I could be concerned because of his lack of experience, but that is mitigated by the fact that he will surround himself with more seasoned people on ‘both sides of the aisle’ to help him learn the ropes. If I were 10 years younger, I would be behind Barack Obama all the way. He appeals to that younger part of me that is full of hope and idealism and optimism. He really touches my heart, which speaks highly of his ability as a motivational speaker. It’s impossible even in my older age not to get excited when I hear him speak; this is why I had to remove myself from the emotion and completely use my cognitive discernment in asking myself who would be the best president in a practical sense.

Something regarding Hillary Clinton that I had intended to discuss but neglected to mention in my first post is about her experience as a First Lady. I did touch upon what she did while she was First Lady of Arkansas as well as of the U.S. What I didn’t talk about was how much a woman learns from her husband regarding his job, which I think is quite significant.

Certainly Hillary was probably not at the high-level meetings and did not have access to the big red nuclear button, but that does not by any means discount what she did learn and what influence she did have as Bill Clinton’s wife. As quoted in my previous post, Hillary was the first wife of a President who took up residence in the west wing of the White House rather than the typical east wing. This alone means she was privy to many discussions that went on in that wing just by virtue of her physical proximity. Also, husbands naturally bounce ideas and discussions off of their wives, especially in long-term marriages, so even the higher-level topics were most likely discussed. People can make all the assumptions they want to about the Clintons in their personal relationship, but one thing is very clear: Bill had (and still has) a great amount of respect for Hillary as an intelligent, competent woman, and you can’t be married to someone like that without having conversations about matters other than what color the curtains should be or who is coming to tea that afternoon.

As an example, although I am nowhere near as capable and intelligent as Hillary Clinton is, I’m also not a dimwit and I do have my own set of talents. My husband has been a hand-tool wholesaler for decades, and as a result, I know more about tools than the average man. I’ve voluntarily helped him with his business for a number of years, and have learned more than I ever would have otherwise just by association — and I’ve never been terribly passionate about tools the way Hillary is about politics, so you can be sure that she has absorbed a ton of useful information both passively and actively.

Another thing I like about Hillary that I neglected to mention before is her diverse political background. I was very happy that Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected California’s governor for much the same reason. He is a Republican who is married to a Kennedy, which is guaranteed to bring balance to his politics. I am sure he discusses politics and issues with his wife, and listens to her when she gives her opinion. Hillary was born into a very conservative household, and at some point in her life she used her brain to give weight to her political beliefs by not staying a Republican just because her family was. She actually took a good look at her beliefs and found that they did not agree with everything she had been raised with. Despite this, she understands why Republicans believe what they do, even if she disagrees, and she has some compassion and respect for even the most right-wing conservatives because of her upbringing in that environment. This is probably why she is not seen as a true liberal, and rightly so.

Comments

Finally, I was happy to see how quickly others had commented on my last post, especially considering this is my very first venture into Blogland. I’d like to take the time to respond to each of them, since I welcome all sorts of discussions and hope they continue.

maryblu Says:
January 27, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Very good post, but I do not find Hillary a very admirable woman, She has many great achievments under her belt, but she is not the type of woman I want my granddaughter to see as the first woman president. She acts like it is her right, not a privilage. I have watched her close since her decsion to run was made and I have lost any respect I may have had for her at one time.

Maryblu, thank you for your compliment on my post! I worked on it most of the day, and your first three words meant a lot to me — as did the rest of your post, even though we don’t share the same opinion. I myself have five stepdaughters (their half-sister recently had a baby, so that would be my first almost-grandchild), and I am always concerned about role models. I personally believe that Hillary Clinton is a great role model for my girls, because she is strong and capable and doesn’t let fear or intimidation or male dominance keep her from achieving her dreams. This is a bit personal for me, because their biological mother has been unfortunately dependent on males for most of her life, and she is an important person in their lives. Of course, it’s possible that this was how she was raised and due to harsh circumstances in her own life, but I’m very passionate about my stepdaughters learning how to hold their own and be responsible for themselves and independent.

You also said, “She acts like it [being elected president] is her right, not a privilage.” I understand how you feel, especially based on the statements she made last year in the media, like when she corrected a reporter who said “If you’re President…” by saying, “When I’m President.” You could say that she feels entitled, or you could say that she’s very confident. But is this skewed because she is a woman, or because her spouse is a former President who used this same sort of confidence? Is it wrong or ugly for a woman to be confident? I’ve heard ALL of the other candidates display the exact same type of confidence; is it different for them because they are men, or because none of them are married to a former President? That’s a tough call. I would like to believe that on her own, gender or spouse affiliation should not matter, but it probably does matter.

**************************

demolition65 Says:
January 27, 2008 at 8:30 pm

As Maryblu has stated: She has credentials, but she is a miserable human being, married to a possible MORE miserable human being, whom she enables. To everyone else, she is just plain cranky, if not outright nasty. She DOES act as if the White House is her RIGHT.

OK, she’s tough. She’s experienced. Not to mention opinionated and self-righteous. So were Vince Lombardi and General George Patton, and neither of them would have made admirable Chief Executives.

Demolition65, I peeked at your blog I was taken to when I clicked on your name, and I see that you are not just anti-Hillary, but you are also a staunch conservative, if not registered Republican. But don’t worry, I won’t hold that against you, and I also appreciate your input. I would like to make a correction, though… Maryblu did not state that Hillary is a miserable woman, and I read your post as implying that Maryblu had said that. I just don’t want to put words in her mouth; perhaps you were only agreeing that Maryblu intimated that Hillary has credentials. Okay, sorry, don’t mean to digress!

I do take issue with your description of the Clintons as both being miserable. They don’t seem miserable to me at all; they seem very happy and very successful, for the most part. But maybe you were using ‘miserable’ in a different context. Do they make you miserable? If so, why? I see that you are very upset about Bill having an extramarital liaison, so I would assume you have zero respect for anyone who does that. Hopefully your anger isn’t just limited to Bill Clinton simply because he is Bill Clinton and his beliefs are different from yours. I also disagree that Hillary enables him; I’m not sure what you mean by that statement.

You also said, “To everyone else, she is just plain cranky, if not outright nasty.” By “everyone else,” do you mean everyone else who doesn’t like her? From what I see, a great many people don’t see her that way, so I can only assume you are talking about her political or personal opponents.

You agree that she is tough and experienced, and since you don’t seem to like her at all personally or politically, I will take those two adjectives to heart as something you and I have in common. As to your description of her being “opinionated” and “self-righteous,” I will also agree with you to a certain extent, but this is also something I see in every one of the other candidates in both parties. Perhaps all four of those qualities, whether we like them or not, are things that politicians feel they must have in order to run for President of the United States.

**************************

I can’t thank both of you enough for leaving comments. Like I said, this is my first foray into Blogging like this, and I feel like a real idiot when I fight with WordPress formatting! I am thrilled when I am able to have intelligent discussions with people, especially those who have vastly different opinions and perspectives from my own. I learn so much from everyone I talk to.

Why Hillary?

January 27, 2008
by Heidi

Inspiration

As I stroll through Digg articles, I notice that much of the community there is anti-Clinton. I see a whole Ron Paul contingent there (which is natural, since the bulk of Dr. Paul’s support began through a heavy surge on the internet) and many pro-Obama Diggers, but it seems to me that any time Hillary Clinton’s name is mentioned, the attacks come savagely in huge numbers, as if George W. Bush had decided to run again. (It is digg.com, in fact, that inspired me to write out my opinions on this election in detail.)

I understand that Digg, like much of the internet, has a demographic with a greater number of younger people, a higher percentage of males than females, with an average age range of less than 24 years — in fact, a statistic from January 2007 reports that over 70% of digg users are age 14 and under. According to a Pew Research report, the highest percentage of internet users (71%) are adults between the ages of 18 and 29. This tells me that most of the Paul/Obama supporters on Digg are young, idealistic males, which makes perfect sense as the platforms of these candidates are upbeat and full of idealism.

However, I’ve been asked by a number of people, both on Digg and in my 3-D life, which candidate I like, and why. I’ve given this a tremendous amount of thought, as I hope most voters do. Digg users (“diggers”) are not forgiving with opinions differing from the majority there, so I get slammed for asking questions or making comments that seem pro-Hillary. I have had some private messages sent my way at that site asking for my justifications for liking Hillary Clinton. Since I’m unable to post honestly there why I would support a Clinton nomination (without getting buried alive, that is), I thought I’d set my thoughts down in a blog of my own.

.

.

Clinton Facts

Obama Facts

.  ...

Barack Obama, full of zest and charisma and hope, delivers amazing speeches wherever he goes that inspire and motivate people. I love watching the man and hearing him speak. Listening to him, I find myself getting excited and hopeful at the prospect of having him as America’s President. But when the goose-bumps relax a little, I use my head instead of my heart. What, besides his promising speeches, can he do to fix the mess that Bush has left? How long will it take him to get into the Presidential Groove before he can start working on changing things? How much experience does he have with middle-east politics and culture?

Exactly how much of Barack Obama’s talent is something other than incredible speeches and a big, compassionate heart? With the urgency of America’s current situation — the economy, the war in Iraq, the world’s view of our country — can we pin our hopes on speeches, as incredible as they may sound?

Hillary Clinton has already proven how tough she is during her tenure as First Lady and even through her performance with campaigning thus far. She appears unfazed by attacks, although they are plenty, and if she is the nominee, she will need that extra layer of tough skin to withstand the hostile right-wing attacks that will be deployed at whomever the Democratic candidate may be. Can Barack Obama withstand such attacks? I don’t know. I don’t know that he’s ever been put through the right-wing attack machine.

Also, Mrs. Clinton has experience. I know this is a bone of contention with her opponents, who like to say, “What kind of experience does she have, other than being a Senator for a short time? She wasn’t a Governor, she wasn’t a President, that was her husband.” The facts are available for all to see who question her experience, starting when she was just 13 years old and canvassed her South-Side Chicago for the Republican party after the 1960 election, finding evidence of vote fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon.¹

By the time she was 18, she was a “Goldwater Girl” (in 1964), and fully politically aware. How many kids from 13 to 18 even care about politics, let alone get involved in it? Her early political development was shaped most strongly by her energizing high school history teacher, like her father a fervent anti-communist, and by her Methodist youth minister, like her mother concerned with issues of social justice; with the minister she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in 1962.²

In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College, where she majored in political science. She served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year. However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position; she characterized her own nature as that of “a mind conservative and a heart liberal.” In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy. Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley’s black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty. In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association. She attended the “Wellesley in Washington” summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, who assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference so she could better understand her changing political views. Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination. Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon’s campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the “veiled” racist messages of the convention.

Rodham returned to Wellesley, and wrote her senior thesis about the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky under Professor Schechter (which, years later while she was first lady, was suppressed at the request of the White House and became the subject of speculation as to its contents). In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. Stemming from the demands of some students, she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address. According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes. She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement; she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet’s nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers. That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions).

[[ Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton ]]

In the summer of 1970, at the age of 22, Hillary was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman’s Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale’s Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers’ problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.

Hillary entered Yale Law School in 1971 after graduating from Wellesley. During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973). She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor.

Now, mind you, all of this took place before she ever married Bill Clinton!

She did marry Bill, finally, on October 11, 1975. At this time, Bill Clinton was teaching law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law, and a short time later he became Attorney General of that state. Hillary then joined that infamous corporate law firm her opponents like to bring up often, Rose Law Firm, which specialized in intellectual property law and patent infringement; what her opponents don’t tell you about these years of her life is that she rarely performed litigation work in court, and she did a lot of pro bono work in child advocacy, as well as her interest in children’s law and family policy, publishing scholarly articles in that area. In 1977 she co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children’s Defense Fund; she was also on the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation, which provides equal access to justice under the law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it.

It is important to note, in light of her candidacy, that in 1981 Hillary Clinton successfully fought the newly-elected Ronald Reagan over funding for the Legal Services Corporation. Reagan wanted to cut funding for this service, and tried to appoint very conservative lawyers to the LSC who were against financial aide for the poor.³ She had the balls to fight for justice against the President of the United States, and this was before her husband was even elected Governor of Arkansas!

Notable First Lady Experience

All of this experience in her personal and professional life is enough to qualify as Commander-In-Chief, but there is more that absolutely cannot be discounted. Hillary Clinton was First Lady in the State of Arkansas for 12 years (1979–1981, 1983–1992), and was the U.S. First Lady when Bill was President for 8 years (1993-2001). And believe me, she was not the kind of First Lady (either time) who sat and smiled and knitted and planned dinners!

In Arkansas, she not only maintained her professional career, she also was chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas’ poorest areas without affecting doctors’ fees. Additionally, As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992.

Here are some highlights of her achievements in Arkansas:

• introduced Arkansas’ Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy
• chaired the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession, which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it
• served on the boards of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Legal Services (1988–1992) and the Children’s Defense Fund

As First Lady of the United States, Hillary was nowhere near the usual role, being compared more to Eleanor Roosevelt than any First Lady since then.

When Bill Clinton took office as president in January 1993, Hillary Rodham Clinton became the First Lady of the United States, and announced that she would be using that form of her name. She was the initial first lady to hold a post-graduate degree and to have her own professional career up to the time of entering the White House. She was also the initial first lady to take up an office in the West Wing of the White House, first ladies usually staying in the East Wing. She is regarded as the most openly empowered presidential wife in American history, save for Eleanor Roosevelt.

Some critics called it inappropriate for the First Lady to play a central role in matters of public policy. Supporters pointed out that Clinton’s role in policy was no different from that of other White House advisors and that voters were well aware that she would play an active role in her husband’s Presidency. Bill Clinton’s campaign promise of “two for the price of one” led opponents to refer derisively to the Clintons as “co-presidents”, or sometimes “Billary”. The pressures of conflicting ideas about the role of a First Lady were enough to send Clinton into “imaginary discussions” with the also-politically-active Eleanor Roosevelt; from the time she came to Washington, she also found refuge in a prayer group of The Fellowship that featured many wives of conservative Washington figures.

[[ Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton ]]

Health Care

Hillary is well-known for her efforts at introducing a Universal Health Care system in the early 1990s. Clinton later acknowledged in her book, Living History, that her political inexperience partly contributed to the defeat, but mentioned that many other factors were also responsible.

Barack Obama says he also has a plan for socialized Health Care, although it varies from that of Hillary Clinton’s and John Edwards’s. Obama’s Health Care Plan is outlined Here. According to factcheck.org, the plans aren’t all that different:

“Clinton’s plan would likely lead to somewhat higher levels of coverage than Obama’s, according to the research we’ve seen. But the difference in outcomes may not amount to much. The main distinction: Clinton calls for a mandate that would require all individuals to have health insurance; Obama requires only that children have coverage and that dependents be covered under their parents’ insurance up to age 25. Of the estimated 46.5 million uninsured in the U.S., 9.4 million are children and 37 million are adults, according to an analysis of Census data by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured and the Urban Institute. But neither candidate has provided enough detail for analysts to predict confidently how many might be left uninsured under either plan.”

The true difference in my opinion is that Hillary spent years discovering how not to introduce a universal health care system to Congress; she fought that fight and lost, and will take care not to replicate her mistakes. Obama, on the other hand, is a newbie at White House failures to learn from. It seems to me that Hillary has learned from these crucial mistakes, while Obama is doomed to repeat them.

Foreign Policies

Finally, I am struck by Mrs. Clinton’s overseas experience. She has traveled to at least 79 countries,⁴ (the most well-traveled First Lady in history) and many of those visits included advocating for women’s rights in those countries which treat women as second-class citizens (such as Afghanistan and China). She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.

Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, set records for international travel while President. According to the Republican Party Committee, Bill Clinton holds the record for foreign trips by a U.S. president (32), number of days abroad (154), and rate of foreign travel (27 days per year). As “First Gentleman,” this experience along with his amazing communication abilities would make him an incredible asset to the Hillary Clinton Administration, and consequently to the country. Bill would be the best suited to repair international damage done by the current Bush Administration, and to help return our global status from ridiculed to admired once again.

Right-wing critics say, “Oh, we don’t want Bill back in the White House!” Well, why the hell not? George W. Bush has hurt our country so badly that it would take TWO presidents (albeit a past and a current one) to clean up his mess. Hillary can certainly hold her own as Commander-In-Chief, and while she’s busy making domestic reparations, Bill will be invaluable abroad.

After real consideration, which includes all of the above, I cannot help but believe that the best candidate for President of the United States of America is embodied by the maturity and experience of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As for Barack Obama, I believe he is outstanding, and will make a great President. I would love to vote for him; if this were any old election year, I just might — he and Hillary seem to have many of the same goals and dreams, which I admire greatly. But this is not any old election year… it is post-Bush fallout cycle. The time we live in is one where we can’t afford to wait for a new President to find all the bathrooms and meet all the people and figure out which piles of paper on the desk are which. Hillary Clinton already knows all that; she knows where everything is, she knows who to talk to in every office in Washington when she needs to get things done. The engine is already tuned up and running for her. Next January all she has to do is slam on the accelerator and that will be all.

My sincere hope is that Hillary will ask Barack Obama to be her running-mate, and that he will accept. Someone with that JFK-esque persona is bound to do great things; all he needs is a little time to gain the needed experience, and what better mentor than Hillary Clinton? As Vice President, he is practically guaranteed the keys to the White House once Hillary has served her tenure.

.

.

.

Footnotes

1. ^ Gerth, Jeff; Don Van Natta, Jr. (2007). Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. New York: Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 0-316-01742-6. , p. 19.

2. ^ Gerth, Van Natta Jr., Her Way, pp. 18–21. The teacher, Paul Carlson, and the minister, Donald Jones, came into conflict with each in Park Ridge; Clinton would later see that “as an early indication of the cultural, political and religious fault lines that developed across America in the [next] forty years.” Living History, p. 23.; ^ Brock, David (2006). The Seduction of Hillary Rodham (excerpt from the book). Retrieved on 2007-02-05. Her father was an outspoken Republican, while her mother kept quiet but was “basically a Democrat.” See Living History, p. 11.

3. ^ ^{a b c} Carl Bernstein, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Knopf, ISBN 0375407669. p. 133.

4. Patrick Healy. “The Résumé Factor: Those 8 Years as First Lady“, The New York Times, 2007-12-26.

Note: Obviously, many of my links are to Wikipedia. I have researched other places over the past year as well, but I found Wikipedia to have the best concentration of facts to link to, and the references all appear to be accurate. If you find factual errors, please notify me with a reference to your correction source. Thank you.

myLot User Profile

About the Authors: The Story of the 2 Wenches

About the Authors

Cindy and Heidi have been best friends since the 8th grade, and over the years have shared each other’s successes and storms. Life’s experiences and adventures have given them the ability to pass on their views to you. They hope to spark intelligent discussions and provide advice and empathy to those who need it.

Heidi is on the west coast, in Southern California, and Cindy is on the east coast, in Delaware. They have had very different upbringings and some opposing opinions, but they find through their strong friendship that they are able to respect each other’s differences and discuss them without judging or fighting. They both believe that the world would be a better place if everyone could be like this!

Topics

Cindy’s interests include cats (and other animals), politics, books, movies, television, relationships, social issues, and hotbutton discussions.

Heidi’s interests include politics, social issues, education, family, books, movies, psychology, and people in general.

Look for our writing here, and feel free to comment and engage in discussions!