Why Clinton?

As evidenced by the Michigan primary there are a number of people that support Hillary Clinton for President. Quite simply, this baffles me; there are at least five candidates that I would support over her for a number of reasons, four republicans and one democrat. I’ll save the comments on the republicans for another time and just talk about Barack Obama for the sake of the length of this blog.

Other than one vote, that on the Iraq war resolution (on which I happen to think Clinton was correct), there is not a nickel’s worth of difference in the public policies of the two. They are both, while not left wing loonies, well to the left of center on the political spectrum. This is not a knock on them; if you believe in liberal philosophy, one or the other of is your candidate.  Both believe in higher taxes and more government participation (intrusion? control?) in the life of Joe Sixpack. That being the case, is it not reasonable to look at the differences between the two of them on a personal level?

Obama brings tremendous energy and a fresh face to the party. He is an engaging speaker and seems to have a stable family life with a bright spouse who will not embarrass him or the country. It seems he would also bring a large number of young people, with their fresh (some good, some bad) ideas to the political process; energy and ideas that are desperately needed in today’s bitterly partisan environment. 
There are only two knocks on him that I’ve heard: his lack of experience and he is an “empty suit”.  Let’s look at these:

While both allegations are ridiculous, the lack of experience is downright laughable. First, there aren’t many jobs that prepare anyone for the presidency; certainly neither Clinton nor Obama have held any of them. Second, the office of president should not be involved in the details (as shown by Jimmy Carter) of running the State, Defense or any other department of the government. Despite the media and Clinton’s protestations to the contrary, the job of President is to provide guidance, inspiration, and direction, not perform the detailed functions of the government. Hiring good people and being able to listen and judge is far more important than experience. 

Clinton’s experience, as far as I can tell, is to live off the taxpayer and travel the world to meet people. She has no management or business experience that I could find. I do not believe the time she spent as wife of a sitting president gave her any decision making experience or legal standing (other than with her health care debacle). Her deliberations with her husband were likely more concerned with his extra curricular activities than affairs of state. The concept of having to look and listen to the two of them (and relive the impeachment days) for four more years is unbearable to me. We would have to go over the Rose law billing records, the death of Vince Foster, White Water, questionable futures trading, Monica ad nauseam, etc. If they were a “pay for one, get two” team with Bill in the White House, my assumption is they would be a team again. For the people that are concerned with the world image of the United States, we would again (still) become a laughingstock. 

The empty suit allegation I find fascinating. These are the buzz words du jour for the media elites, although I’m not sure why or where it started. As any good politician knows (especially Clinton the first), the use of words is critically important. Obama has written three books that explain his views totally adequately and seem to be quite reasoned and mature. Clinton has given numerous speeches where she has supported the war in Iraq, been neutral on the war, and been opposed to it. No one can accuse her of being an empty suit, but consistency is definitely not her strong suit. 

I saw absolutely no reason to vote for her over Obama (uncommitted in Michigan) in the primary, with one exception. If you were a republican, I think you would far rather face Clinton in the general election than Obama.