Choosing A President: Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama

America is in the midst of choosing its next President, it's next Commander-In-Chief.  But, although hopeful, I feel that we, as Democrats, may be making a mistake yet again.  I want to like Obama, I really do, and to some extent, I like him as a candidate in theory, but I just can't imagine this guy being President.  

I listen to Obama's speeches, I read his policy positions on his website, and I watch his debate performances.  All share the same characteristics: no substance, no "meat".  It's important to remember that this is a Presidential election, not a popularity contest.  Obama talks a great talk and can certainly give a great speech to fire up a crowd, but in the end, we need to ask ourselves, so what?  

Talking a good talk can only take one so far.  The next President needs to be able to enact the changes that Obama so often refers to.  

When are we going to start asking ourselves and Obama, what exactly do you mean by change. That question was posed to Obama tonight, in fact, and again, we heard the same rhetoric: "change this", "change that".  No substance; no insight on why he, Obama, is the candidate to make change or what he has done in the past, to serve as an example for the change he will bring.  

Obama and his supporters seem to think that all Obama needs to do is be elected and suddenly, Washington is going to change.  Obama, himself, might think, judging from his speeches and policies, that all he needs to do is say "change the war", "change healthcare", "change the economy", and "poof", all is going to be fixed.  If only it was that easy.  

Sen. Clinton, in stark contrast, has a long record of bringing about change.  She doesn't just talk about it, she has a record to back it up, whereas Obama does not.  If anyone knows how to bring about change, it's Hillary Clinton.  In 1979, Hillary brought about massive change in Arkansas when she expanded medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest regions.  A few years later, still in Arkansas, Hillary persevered a tough battle with special interests in drastically reforming the public school system.  As Arkansas First Lady, Clinton also put much pressure on local corporations to become more environment friendly, as well as advocated for stronger equality for women in the workplace.

Hillary fought for universal healthcare when it wasn't even popular in '93 and has fought for it everyday since.  Even today, Barack Obama does not advocate it.  She worked alongside Ted Kennedy and was the driving force behind SCHIP, providing healthcare for millions of uninsured children.  In '97, Hillary initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act.  She traveled across the world and gave powerful speeches on behalf of the U.S. on critical issues.  She also had a huge part in creating "Vital Voices", an international program to promote women taking part in the political processes across the globe.  

In the Senate, Clinton has fought for change in numerous ways---including ethics reform. Hillary crossed party lines and, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, gave National Guard members and Reserves healthcare benefits.  Clinton was also, notably, the first Senator to call directly on the Pentagon to change course in Iraq, demanding withdrawal plans from them. 

For anyone to say that Hillary is somehow the "establishment" or the "status quo" is actually quite insulting to all that she has done.  Hillary, if anything, has fought the establishment and has fought for change.  Indeed, she not only fought for it, she achieved it on everything except universal healthcare, which she should be given enormous credit for fighting tirelessly for. If anyone has stood up to the interests and corporations, it has been Hillary Clinton.

So, my question is, why just hope for change when there's a candidate who has decades of actually fighting for change and bringing it about.  Every campaign season, there seems to be one major fallacy.  This year, the fallacy is the notion that Obama is the change candidate, while Hillary is not.  

I challenge Obama supporters to give me examples of meaningful change that he has brought about in his lifetime.  I assure you it can not compare to the change Hillary has brought about. 

Then there is the argument that Obama is the most electable Democrat, which I frankly just don't get.  He has not been tested; he has yet to face a contest against a serious Republican.  Do we really want November 2008 to be his training?  Just think, as I now do, that McCain is the GOP nominee.  Obama will get crushed.  Not because McCain is right on all the issues, but because of the experience question.  As hungry as Americans are for change, the majority that will vote in the General Election want experience as well.  Rightfully or not, the GOP will say that Obama is not qualified to handle major issues such as a serious terrorist attack or the growing international problems.  And, unlike in previous elections, they are right about Obama.  He does not have that kind of experience.  

McCain, or whomever is the GOP nominee, will not be able to make that same argument against Sen. Clinton.  Every single Republican I've seen interviews, including McCain, Lott, Graham, Giuliani, and even Bush, say that although they strongly disagree with Clinton's positions, she does have the experience and strength to handle those critical issues.  The GOP has already conceded that fact to Clinton; they won't be able to "out-experience" her.  

Clinton also has a strong record of winning over Republican support, even in the most unlikely places.  When she ran for Senate in 2000, the media narrative and, for that matter, the general consensus, was that there was no way Clinton would be able to win over conservative and moderate Republicans in upstate New York.  Not only did she win them over, but she won them over by an even larger margin in 2006.  Once Republicans get to hear the real Hillary Clinton, not the one that the GOP tries to create, they like what they hear.  In fact, in 2006, Clinton won 58 of New York's 62 counties, many of which were won by Bush in 2000 and 2004.  There is no doubt that Hillary, just as much as any other candidate, can appeal to Republicans.

The last thing I'll mention is the experience factor.  Let's come back to reality and realize that we're electing a President here.  A President needs experience.  Experience is what get things done.  Bill Richardson said it best tonight when he said that people somehow are starting to think that experience is some kind of disease in this election cycle.  I truly hope people come to there senses if that's how they feel.  

There is a war to safely end.  There is a healthcare crisis to fix.  The economy is in jeopardy. Those problems and many more aren't going to be solved by hoping for it.  The next President isn't going to be able to give a great speech and make them all just go away.  The next President is going to have to work hard to solve them.  I am confident that Hillary, not Obama, has the strength, perseverance, and experience to solve those problems and bring about true, meaningful change.  She has done that for decades; there is no reason to believe she won't do it as President.  

Here is a clip from tonight's debate that perfectly illustrates the points I'm trying to make: