Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

On July 23, there will be a debate of the presidential candidates live on CNN. It’s at 7 o’clock PM — watch it! If you’re a Hillary Clinton supporter, you can go to a Hillary Clinton House Party near you. And if you want to submit a question, go to Youtube and send in your video. I love democracy in action. Wahoooooooooooooooo! (Go Clinton.)

Will you watch the debate? I know I will. CNN, 7pm, Sunday: be there!

Senator Hillary Clinton raised the ire of some Democrats when she voted to authorize a possible Iraq war in 2002. I say “some” because at that time, a number of Democrats as well as Republicans thought it was a good idea. Let’s not engage in historical revisionism on that point. Still, though, Senator Clinton has done a lot of thinking, studying, watching and reconsidering, and that’s what a good leader should do. Last night, Senator Hillary Clinton decided that enough was enough, and she voted a firm “NO” on sending President Bush another blank check for Iraq. Clinton explained her vote:

“Tonight I voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill because it fails to compel the President to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq. I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation. I fully support our troops, and wish the President had followed the will of the people and signed the original bill we sent which both funded the troops and set a new course of phased redeployment. But the President vetoed Congress’s new strategy and so Congress must reject the President’s failed policies. I will also continue to press with Senator Byrd for our legislation to end the authorization of the war in Iraq.”

Understand what Senator Clinton has done here. She has firmly, finally, joined the anti-war contingent of Americans that is our new majority. She passes my test.

Read here about Hillary Clinton’s willingness to quietly, without fanfare or fuss, reach across the aisle to George Herbert Walker Bush, the president of the early 1990s. While Barack Obama speaks in soaring cadences about reaching across partisan divisions, Hillary Clinton is doing it. George Herbert Walker Bush has come to admire Hillary Clinton’s wit and wisdom. I look forward to her entering the White House as president and building those kind of cross-party alliances full-time.

Over at the California Progress Report I read something that strongly resonated with me:

“The San Francisco Chronicle article in this morning’s paper, summed up the situation in a nutshell with the following paragraph which I think hit the nail on the head:

Parsing through both her speech and that of Obama, it is hard to find major differences on issues and policies, and most delegates were hard pressed to articulate the differences, except on the perhaps on the war in Iraq, where both candidates favor withdrawal and have voted for withdrawal of troops. When it comes to the issues of health care, education, the environment, there is broad general agreement.”

I felt this watching the debate, too: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama don’t really have that much policy difference between them. Senator Clinton emphasizes expanded health care coverage a great deal more, but Senator Obama does not disagree with that. Senator Obama likes to talk about how he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning,” which is really convenient because he was not in the position of having to do anything about it at the time, but now Senator Clinton has essentially moved to his position on the war (surprise, people of excellent minds reconsider and change).

The main differences between them are:

1. OK, I admit it, Barack Obama can be more fiery at times on the stump. He is a grassroots organizer. Hillary Clinton has extensive contacts within the political establishment and works well with the movers and shakers.

2. Hillary Clinton has a lot more experience, going back to the 1970s, in politics, advocacy and government. Barack Obama’s experience is good. But you just can’t deny that Hillary Clinton has more experience.

The two most popular Democratic politicians have different styles and appeals. They can speak effectively to different audiences. They have similar or at least compatible policy agendas. And while Barack Obama certainly has enough experience to be president, Hillary Clinton has a great deal more experience than the more junior Senator does.

The conclusion is obvious to me: our party’s ticket in 2008 should be a Clinton-Obama ticket. Then, in 2016, Barack Obama should run for president in his own right, capping off the Clinton legacy with one of his own.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
P.S. People here have been casting aspersions upon me without any proof. This is why I do not respond in comment sections of blogs; I know from hard experience that very hurtful flame wars happen there. Yes, I am a Hillary Clinton fanatic. No, I do not work for the Hillary Clinton campaign. I am a citizen who cares very, very, very much. That is all you need to know.

The winner of the South Carolina Democratic Presidential Debates, the first in a season of debates, was in my mind without a doubt Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton completely defied her image as shrill by expressing herself humbly, admitting her mistakes, and laying out her political case in a clear and concise way. I liked the Senator’s no-nonsense style in presenting her ideas without getting hyper (Gravel) or rambling (Richardson) or fake (Edwards). Don’t get me wrong: I agree with Senator Joseph Biden who said that [almost] any of the people on that stage last night would make an excellent president. But the person in the debate to whom most people on stage and off looked for guidance, the person who made the strongest case in the short time allotted to her, was Hillary Rodham Clinton. Senator Biden’s best line of the night: “Whichever Republicans think they really want Hillary Clinton as an opponent are either stupid or crazy.” She showed she was a real competitor last night.

Please consider sending a campaign contribution to help Hillary Clinton become our next president. Visit HillaryClinton.com now!

Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland was the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate (rather than be appointed first). And now Barbara Mikulski is endorsing another first: the first woman president, Hillary Clinton. Says Mikulski:

“She works every day to advance women’s rights, by standing up for the women’s basketball team at Rutgers and leading the legislative effort for equal pay to become a reality for women. As the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in my own right, I am honored to join Senator Clinton in this historic effort to break the last barrier for women in public life.”

Senator Hillary Clinton reacted to the 5-4 Gonzales v. Carhart decision the same day:

“This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.”

Senator Clinton wouldn’t have put John Roberts and Sam Alito on the bench. That’s why we need to make sure that Senator Clinton, our party’s best bet in 2008, receives all the support she can get. Please consider making a donation today: any amount will be of great help not just to Senator Clinton’s campaign but to the reproductive rights of women across the country.

President Bush doesn’t want Americans to do anything besides go shopping. But President Clinton would ask more of Americans. Senator Hillary Clinton has announced her plan to form a national Public Service Academy: “Modeled after the military service academies, the Public Service Academy would provide a four-year, federally subsidized college education for more than 5,000 students a year in exchange for a five-year commitment to public service following graduation. Graduates of the Academy would serve their country for five years, creating a new generation of young people dedicated to public service.” We could have a new, even greater Greatest Generation if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

Senator Hillary Clinton is using the bully pulpit of her presidential campaign to promote activism among citizens. Sign the petition Clinton started that demands Alberto Gonzales resign for inserting politics into Justice and then LYING about it. Unforgiveable! Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for giving Americans something better to do about injustice in the world than going shopping for duct tape.

While Mitt Romney could only get $20 million in contributions, Rudy Giuliani had just $15 million and John McCain had to settle for a paltry $12.5 million, Hillary Clinton dominated with $26 million in campaign contributions. Hillary Clinton is simply dominant. And what is much more impressive than even that is that Senator Clinton managed to collect her $26 million in contributions with 80% of donors giving just $100 or less. These 80% — some 40,000 donors — represent the American heartland, not some bigwigs, and they will be able to give again and again and again as Senator Clinton needs the money without hitting campaign contribution maximums. The numbers alone show that Hillary Clinton is on her way to an impressive, dominating presence in the 2008 campaign. The big boys of Republican politics have nothing to show compared to Hillary Clinton.

… for right-wing nut cases, is that she is a woman and not ashamed of it. Yes, the Christian fundies have their knickers in a twist over the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman and not just content to stand by her man, but determined to run for President.

But isn’t it great that just about everyone else isn’t focussing on what it means that Hillary Clinton is a woman? Senator Clinton is being evaluated for her policy positions and her stated priorities for a presidency. Know what that means? It means that most of us in America (Christian fundies) excluded have grown up and started looking at a leader’s content of character and history of action. Aren’t you proud to see this come to pass?

Hillary Clinton has grabbed a record amount of campaign cash for a quarter — $26 million dollars (and $10 million more transferred from earlier Senate campaigns), according to CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/01/clinton.money/

This is huge news. It means that Hillary Clinton is going to be able to generate a lot of buzz for herself, and a fair amount of inevitability. Some might say this is a bad thing. But I say it is the sign of a good leader: someone who is able to generate an air of obviousness about what she wants to do, so that everybody follows along. If Hillary Clinton can manage to do this, then I would posit that she is, by definition, a highly skilled leader. And I say good for her. We could use someone who is competent in the Oval Office.