A post I made at the Richard Dawkins website. RE: O vs. HRC [View All]

[Deep13]

I sometimes post at the Richard Dawkins site. It is an international website that caters to religious skeptics. There was a discussion about the U.S. presidential elections.
* * * *


I am a little surprised at the animosity against H.Clinton and the support for Obama on this board. Frankly the prospect of an Obama presidency is a little frightening. Four years ago this guy was a state senator. He has essentially no Federal experience since he has spent his entire US Senate term running for the presidency. And if you think he is somehow just for the people and not for himself, you are delusional. He essentially lied to the State of Illinois when he ran for Senate as he had no intention of serving even one term in that office. Really, what has this guy ever done besides develop his speaking voice? If he wins and the Rs don't turn him into hamburger the way they did to John Kerry, he will have no idea how to manage the Federal Government. (There is already a wispering campaign spreading the rumor that Obama is a Muslim.) What is more, he has the same corporate ties that Clinton has and his proposed policy statements are not much different than hers.

And if you think he will be a secular leader, you are crazy. Do I have to remind you of his closing remarks at the Dem. National Convention 3 1/2 years ago? "...our God is an awesome God!" Was he lying about that? People seem to think he is some kind of messiah. Frankly, that ought to scare the shit out of everyone on the board.

We are not electing the prom queen, a pal, a dad or a pastor. We are electing the boss: the person who will manage America's unmanageable bureaucracy; conduct foreign relations for a global economic and military empire and somehow start to repair the damage caused by our last Evangelical president. One glace at Obama's resume should tell you he is not the one for the job. Another thing, since the end of World War Two, every American president has had his finger on the nuclear "button." So far, none of them has pressed that button. Our main job as voters is to keep it that way. One would think that after eight years of disasterous amateur rule, we would be done with that.

Hillary Clinton has been in politics all of her life. In the 1960s the way for a woman to get ahead in the USA was to marry a man with a promising career. That's how it was and to a large extent, that's how it still is. She has been Bill Clinton's closest advisor throughout his political career. We all know this to be true. Remember all the bitching about the "co-presidency" in the 1990s. Well, it was true. I make this point to head-off claims that she is not qualified because she was just his wife. Obviously, that is misogynistic nonsense.

She spent 8 years in the White House as a close advisor to Pres. Clinton. Peace and prosperity for eight years. He was the only 20th century president to preside over a budget surplus. Also, despite public remarks about his faith, he was in every sense a secular president. By the time the election is here, Hillary Clinton will have been a Senator for nearly eight years, the same amount of time Bill Clinton was president. Despite criticism about her support of the war, she has a solid, liberal voting record. She is by every indication a rational, secular person and will have (if chosen) a secular voting record. This week she has introduced into the Senate a relief and economic stimulus package.

Clinton, if elected, while be in complete command on January 20. There will be no three-months of getting a feel for the driver's seat. I'm glad she is tough and icy under pressure. I don't want someone who will go to pieces if there is a crisis like Bush did (twice.) Having said that, I know her to be a warm person. I have met her twice. What is more, this is her third national campaign. When the Republicans turn on the slander machine, she will know how to deal with it. She will also be able to deftly exploit their weaknesses. What is more, people know who she is, so there really is not a lot they can say that will surprise anyone. HC's negatives are as high as they are going to be. They haven't even started on Obama.

What is more, Obama has never failed before. Indeed, he has not been in the public eye long enough t do that. We all need to fail in order to learn. Clinton failed in 1992 with health care reform. Now she knows. When Obama fails as president (they all do) how will he handle it? Well we don't know.

Finally, I think the women of this country and the world would benefit from being taken more seriously as leaders. Ask any profession woman. They have to work harder and meet higher standards to be successful. Just my own observations confirm this. A knew a female bankrptcy lawyer a while ago who told me that after giving a client a consultation, often the client would say that he or she wanted to hear from the lawyer himself before deciding what to do. (They thought my friend was only a secretary.) The senior asst. prosecutor where I work is constantly snipping at the secretaries to stay out of their female pecking order. Bill Clinton cries (and he did a lot) and he is being sensitive. Sen. Clinton gets misty-eyed and she is either weak or faking it.

Look, if you want someone who can beat the Republicans and actual be able to govern (unlike Pres. Carter for example) and leave the world and the Democratic Party in a better position than when she found it, then back a winner: Hillary Clinton.