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:

Obama Wants You To Know That He DOES Have Foreign Policy Experience

It's no secret that the campaign is getting heated and possibly the most heated battle is between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama's argument has been that Clinton is too "old school", while Clinton touts that Obama is way too inexperienced to be President. Well, Obama is going to put an end to the notion that he is too inexperienced on foreign policy. Here is Obama's own words on his foreign policy credentials:

"Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia."

Yup, thats right, I guess all I have to do to be President is to go live in Indonesia for four years. Here is Sen. Clinton's response:

"Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face. I think we need a president with more experience than that, someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to and has confidence in."

So, I guess the question is who is more experienced on foreign policy---someone who lived in Indonesia for 4 years when he was a child, or someone who has traveled the world and met with the leaders of dozens of countries? This is where I would normally interject to give my thoughts on who is most qualified to be President, but I think you can decide that.

CHARACTER: George W. Bush's Achilles Heel(a special editorial by John Lucia)

During the 2000 Presidential election, Mr. Bush and the people who ran his campaign made a determined effort to question the character of V.P. Al Gore. During one of the debates, even moderator Jim Lehrer promoted the republican talking point and questioned Mr. Gore about his character. Mr. Lehrer never asked Mr. Bush about his own character however.

President Bush has been described by his political operatives as a strong leader. That is the image they try to project. Others say Mr. Bush is stubborn and sticks to his word. The facts say neither of those descriptions are accurate. Lets examine the facts because it is the President who has the character problem.

After the tragic events of 9-11 the President tried to plant the seed in the American peoples mind that Saddam and Iraq played a hand in that attack even though he knew that was false. A President with character would never have done that, but Mr. Bush was trying to lay the ground work for the invasion and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist.

During the debates of the 2004 election, Mr. Bush was asked by one of the people in attendance to name 3 mistakes he made as President. In fact he could not think of any mistakes. He could not and still can not bring himself to admit his many mistakes. He has yet to admit to any mistakes concerning the war in Iraq. Instead he says "we" made mistakes but never "I" made mistakes. This is a trait of a small person who can't accept responsibility. The buck stops at the desk of a strong leader who has character, but not on this President's desk.

A strong leader with character would never have committed our nation and our men and women in uniform to a war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist; a strong leader with character would never have changed his reasons for going to war in Iraq after WMD were not found; a strong leader with character would never have told the American people that Iraq was the center of the war on terror when Bin Laden and Al Queda were in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A strong leader with character would not change the reasons over and over about why we are still in Iraq well into the fifth year of war and occupation; a strong leader with character would not try to brand Veterans who served their country as not supporting our troops when they disagreed with how Bush has conducted the war; A strong leader with character would never say the war in Iraq was justified when the reasons given for starting the war proved to be false. The war itself has proved to be an unnecessary war; a strong leader with character would not have misled the people over and over again throughout his presidency.

A strong leader with character would never tell our enemies to "bring it on" against America and put our men and women in uniform at risk; a strong leader with character would not be reckless in his foreign policy decisions; a strong leader with character would not make self serving statements to justify his decisions that have be proven wrong; a strong leader with character would not walk away from a war he started to leave it to his successor to finish. (The President has already told the people at a news conference over a year ago that the next President would have to deal with the war.)

A strong leader with character would pursue policies that bring our people and nation together instead of division. The President not only fails the character test of a strong leader, but he fails the test of being able to carry the moral mantle of world leadership.

The spin machine of this administration and Karl Rove can not change the facts. Now Mr. Rove has left the administration to write a book and rewrite the history of Mr. Bush's presidency but it will never wash.

I wonder if Jim Lehrer has learned a lesson about "character" in the last several years. Journalist who push politician's talking points would do their profession a favor if they stick to reporting the facts.