The moment I chose to support Hillary Rodham Clinton over Barack Obama was during the Anderson Cooper CNN Youtube Debate. There was a question regarding foreign policy and while I do not remember exactly what each candidate's answers were, their respective answers showed me very clearly that Ms. Clinton is by far the better candidate, especially in terms of foreign relations. I do like Barack Obama and I think that he could be a very good leader--in about 20 years. He offered to meet with leaders of hostile nations and while I think this a very good ideal, I would vehemently disagree with this position.
Before, I never really much paid attention to the arguments that he was far too inexperienced. After having an incompetent President with plenty of experience for 8 years, it's hard to refuse to support a President based on just that. Also, there were plenty of arguments that said Hilary was equally inexperienced (despite the fact that she was an integral part of her husband's presidency). The thing is, his statement and her response showed not just lack of experience on his part, but also showed how naiive he is.
I have no doubt that he is a good man and a good person. I think he and Ms. Clinton agree on a lot of things, but she simply is a more capable and more competent leader. Idealism is a great trait. It's nice to see someone new and fresh, but unfortunately, I think that he is much to idealistic. There are consequences for meeting with hostile foreign dignitaries, consequences I think that would override any benefits by far. Mr. Obama is a very good speaker. He is powerful and engaging. I don't feel the same way about Ms. Clinton, but her response showed me that there's a wisdom that comes from age and experience and I can't help but support her.
Whether or not we like it, we have to admit America is a very powerful nation with much influence. I don't support using this power to bully any other nations, but I also strongly believe that those that have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action. America has a reputation for interfering, but when that reputation extends to involvement in Darfur, I almost don't mind that reputation. And I certainly don't agree that American involvement is solely or even partly for distraction from the war in Iraq. When this reputation of interfering refers to the rebuilding effort after WWII and the Marshall plan, I embrace that reputation.
After years of isolationism--America was adamantly against entering WWII for many years--I thought we saw how wrong it is to stand aside and do nothing as millions of people are killed. While I revere WWII veterans for their service, I have to admit that I feel a little ashamed that America did not try to stop what happened earlier. It makes me think that it's a lot better to stumble into things stupidly and be wrong then wait for extensive periods of time and let great evil happen. (This is a reference to the blog post of someone else describing how she stumbled into a situation in which she wrongfully accused a man of hitting a girl.)
I get the feeling that Mr. Obama does not fully comprehend the weight of the office of the President of the United States of America. Ideally, every leader of every nation should have equal influence, but that's not the case. Foreign dignitaries from North Korea stand to benefit much more from a meeting with American dignitaries than we do from them. A meeting extends the illusion of recognition of a legitimate government, and I do not support recognizing such a government, ever. Meeting without preconditions seems to me very foolish and naiive. However, it's not only this decision or position that reveals to me Barack Obama's inexperience. I also think his position on the war shows that. I don't agree with either of their positions (I do not support pulling out of Iraq), but I think that in dealing with Iraq, Hillary Clinton will be much more capable. (Also, how awesome would it be to have terrorists who look down on women see a woman in such a powerful position?)
I think that her time as First Lady has exposed her to the responsibilities of the White House and what that fully encompasses. I support HRC. I dislike that she does not support gay rights as extensively as I do, but neither does Barack Obama really. And both of them speak of their religion and tout their religiosity too much for my liking, but I still like them both, and I still support her. I consider myself a libertarian, so obviously I will agree with neither fully, but for me, Hillary Clinton is the obvious choice in the democratic primary election.
I doubt this blog will change very many minds, if any at all, but maybe it will show that girls supporting Ms. Clinton have very legitimate reasons for doing so. And that a great many college students aren't just throwing their weight behind Barack Obama. I hope she wins the candidacy and I hope she can really effect the changes she's promised, the changes that I think she's capable of.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think it'll be bad for whoever finally wins the Democratic nomination in the race keeps going on.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Is religiosity even a word?
... very well-written blog; it was focused, honest, and well thought-out. Even though you did not change my mind about Hillary. And I was kind of offended by the "girls supporting" comment... I'm tired of the gender thing being brought into it. It's early... forgive me...
Yeah, that's a word.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Sweet.... it's a real word that totally sounds made-up.
I need to find me one of those.
Yay.
Try cyclopean... That's a fun word.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
As for the girls supporting HRC, I was really tired of the fact that everyone assumed I supported her over Barack Obama simply because of that. I wanted to show that it wasn't even really a factor in my decision to support her. You're right that it's silly sex is being brought into the political arena. Sorry if it offended you.
I totally understand. It just sounded kinda weird the way you worded it and/or I was reading this at like 3 AM.
: )
First I would like to say that your blog was very well written; however, like you mentioned, it doesn't change my mind about Hilary Clinton. I personally can't stand her for many reasons. The main reason I don't like her is that she changes her position on issues all the time. Does America really need a president who can't choose a decision and stick with it? I also don't like Clinton because she comes across as cold person. She doesn't have any kind of warmth in her appearance at all. One other reason I'm not too fond of her is because of her position on health care. While I think that universal health care is a great idea, it doesn't need to be forced on people. America is the land of the free which means we have the right to choose what we want in life and if someone doesn't want the health care provided by this plan of hers then they shouldn't have to have it. Hilary Clinton maybe a great person out of the lime light but her presence in the media has done nothing to impress me and certainly hasn't showed me that she would be a great President.
OBAMA 08
I for one am very excited that our country has not one but two candidates who are not white males. However, I think in the excitement people are forgetting to acknowledge them as equal candidates. I know that at first I really wanted to vote for Hillary because, well, I can't wait until there is a female president. Then last night I was reading about the competition between her and Obama and it separated their supporters out by race. It talked about Hillary winning the Latino vote while Barack had the black vote 6-1. I really don't want to have a president who is elected on the basis of gender or race. I hope that as we get closer to voting time people can pay more attention to their platforms and less attention to the fact that Hillary is a girl and Barack is black. I know that I am going to try to.
The moment I chose to support Barack Obama over Hillary Rodham Clinton was when I contemplated who could bring about needed reforms in health care and foreign policy – the two issues I believe the next president can, and should, address immediately.
I believe there are three fundamental ways to achieve meaningful reform (legislative victory) in Washington:
1) Forge bi-partisan/compromise agreements. John McCain specializes in these agreements (think “the gang of 14” and immigration reform legislation). Bill Clinton also specialized in these (think “don’t ask don’t tell” and welfare reform). While these compromises appear to address the issue at hand, I believe they simply “kick the can” and rarely achieve true reform.
2) Ram it through. George W. Bush has used this tactic successfully on terrorism-related legislation. It involves messy, public battles where victory is based on who demagogues the other side best and who uses the right language (think “Patriot Act” and “No Child Left Behind”). Hillary Clinton favors this approach (think how she approached health care reform in 1993 and how she keeps saying we need to “fight” against our opponents). Newt Gingrich is also a proponent of this approach and I believe it is a polarizing, divisive, short-term strategy (which is why Gingrich and HRC are each despised their opposing parties).
3) Persuade a governing majority to your side. Ronald Reagan was a proponent of this approach and did so convincingly on a number of issues – including tax reform and deregulation. This approach reaches across party lines to bring people to your side in a powerful yet respectful, persuasive tone. Barack Obama utilizes this approach and I believe it is how real, meaningful change is achieved.
Great leaders use words (yes, words) to inspire support from every part of the political spectrum. Of the three candidates, I believe Barack Obama is the only one with the personality and approach of a great leader. If Hillary Rodham Clinton is the nominee, she will squander the progressive movement’s opportunity to win over a majority of Americans. Her style and approach are simply too polarizing. The conservative movement has stumbled and we need a strong leader (not a fighter) to win the philosophical arguments of our time.
I sympathize with your arguments over experience, but experience is simply not enough to achieve meaningful change on a wide range of issues.