I have been weighing what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of the remaining Democratic candidates for President in preparation for casting my vote for the upcoming "Superdupercalifragilisticexpialidocious Tuesday" primaries on February 5th. It’s a difficult decision. We have 3 fantastic candidates, and the country would be well served by any one of them. It’s wonderful to have such a wealth of good candidates; I don’t expect we’ll be presented again with such riches any time soon.
However, as the primary nears, I have to make a choice. I am voting by mail because I expect extremely long lines at polling places, and my Tuesday's are so packed I'll have little time to stand in line but I damn well want to vote.
Ultimately I want to choose the candidate who I believe will best serve this country and the candidate who can win the general election. The Republicans are going to do what they've done for years now: they're going to lie, cheat, smear, and bully the Democratic candidate and do whatever it takes to win. With such a wealth of good candidates and a country that’s fed-up with Bush, his war, his lies, incompetence, and with all the Republican scandals, Democrats need to vote for a winner.
Among the remaining Democratic candidate, John Edwards best reflects my politics (but I am greatly bothered by his position on gay marriage), but he isn’t getting any traction and isn’t going to win the nomination. So for me, the choice comes down to Clinton or Obama. I really like Obama, but I don’t believe he has what it takes to be president—not at this time. He needs more experience, he needs a stronger record to run on, and he needs to be able to take political punches without being distracted by them. If the Obama campaign thinks what the Clinton campaign has been doing is dirty pool (and I disagree with that assertion), they’re going to be stunned by what the Repugs do. A political campaign is an adversarial process, even when candidates are from the same party. Each candidate puts the others through their paces, and when it comes to the general election, the process becomes an even bigger battle.
So, after much consideration, I have made my choice. I am voting for Hillary Clinton. I basically came to this decision last week, but I’ve waited to fill out and mail my ballot because I wanted to try on my decision for a while. Having done so, I’ve come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is best suited to serve as President of the United States. I also believe she is best suited to win the general election. To quote John Edwards, “we have to have a candidate who will get elected in November.” I believe Hillary Clinton is that candidate.
With Clinton, we know what we are getting. She has a record of 35 years of advocacy, public service, and political/policy wonkery. She’s been thoroughly vetted; I can’t imagine there is anything about her that the public hasn’t already heard. Sure, she gets the Republican’s blood boiling, but that’s not news. And as far as her so-called “high negative numbers” goes, no one who has ever uttered that phrase has defined what those negatives are. As Media Matters has made clear, Rove and company have been making these numbers up. Some people may not like Clinton and may not vote for her because of who they think she is, but she has a record to run on—it’s measurable and confirmable, and it’s out there for voters to evaluate.
I think David Corn’s January 18th post best sums up my thinking. He suggests Obama faces a serious problem because in his race against Clinton “it boils down, in a way to this: Clinton says, believe in my resume; Obama says, believe in me.” The election of the next president of the US is too important to rest on a candidate’s ability to generate support “because of who he is, because of his character and considerable personal attributes. . .” (Corn). I have serious doubts that Obama is tough enough or savvy enough to withstand the deluge of criticism and smear the Republicans will throw against the Democratic nominee this fall. Clinton, on the other hand, will stand up against any of the remaining Repugs, and as a long-time target, she’ll be ready to take on whatever they sling her way; she’s been doing it for years.
Perhaps I am being too pragmatic, but as I’ve noted, this election is too important not to consider such things. I used to be an idealist; I’m not anymore
That's okay. Caroline Kennedy is carrying the idealism standard for our generation! I was amazed at how unsubstantial her op-ed piece was--as if gauzy memories of "Camelot" matter that much to the American public these days.
Posted by: joanna | Jan 28, 2008 at 02:34 PM
Yeah, and then today, she read from that piece as she introduced her uncle and praised Obama.
Perhaps she thinks folks don't read the NY Times?
Posted by: desertdemocrat | Jan 28, 2008 at 07:19 PM
He is a good friend that speaks well of us behind our backs.
Posted by: suprayouth | Sep 28, 2011 at 06:05 PM
I learn much from your article. Life is a beautiful journey. Everyone can only live but once. Wise people knows that we should enjoy our life. We should care about everything around us. Clothes, foods, friends, families and everything. Come on, make a better world for you and for me. At the same time, I think my website is good as well
Posted by: manolo blahnik | Oct 10, 2011 at 11:35 PM