Democratic primaries: Why don't they just draw straws
When Hillary Clinton was first lady the thought crossed my mind that she might be positioning for a political career of her own. She was certainly very involved in her husband's presidency. I was a big fan of her universal health care plan so I was thrilled with the idea that she might make a run at the oval office one day. Even when she was running for senate I looked forward fondly to the day she'd be president. The problem I find now is that she's lost all the idealistic fighting spirit she once seemed to have. Now she goes along with the party line or the prevailing winds or whatever.
Those who know me are probably scratching their heads because they've heard me rail against idealism in politics and it's true; I've long said that one of the most important characteristics in a successful politician is the ability to compromise. The truth is that I believe it takes both and it's a delicate balance.
Bill Clinton's presidency is a great example. During his campaign he promised to reform health care. He appointed Hillary to that project and then when she came up with an overly ambitious proposal he passed on it. Could be that he just saw that there was no way it could pass or it could be that he traded it for political capital which he needed to broker bi-partisan deals in Congress and the Senate in order to balance the budget (which was another campaign promise of his). Either way he got the budget balanced and he didn't push the health care proposal which, as much as I love it, was never going to make it through.
Who knows? Maybe Bill came back and told the comittee (i.e. Hilllary) that they needed to scale back their proposal and Hillary stuck to her idealistic guns on that one. Maybe she was so disillusioned by the outcome that she lost her idealism all together. I can't say what went on in the back rooms and behind closed doors, but what I think is clear is that Bill Clinton had the right combination of idealism and pragmatism, he knew how to prioritize and when to compromise and how to get things accomplished. I consider that balanced budget the great legacy of the Clinton presidency and the prime example of the delicate balance it takes to get things done at the top level of legislature (or any level of legislature really). Hillary just doesn't have either of those qualities (idealism or pragmatism) now. I think she did once but not anymore.
So, if not Hillary, who do I support? Well I think it takes a lot of charisma to be president. A president has to be able to gain broad support from the general population of the country. Bill Clinton had that in spades as well. It also takes a different, and sort of opposite, kind of charisma. It takes an argumentative type of charisma. Congressman and senators either have that broad base garnering charisma or are at least familiar enough with it to be able to see through it easily. In order to broker deals with them a president has to be convincing not just to the public at large but to highly intelligent and inherently suspicious congressman and senators.
Obama certainly has the broad base appeal type of charisma. I think he may be a little too idealistic though. I doubt his ability to prioritize or maybe I just doubt what his priorities would be. He talks a lot about foreign policy which is definitely important but I wouldn't want to see domestic policy be pushed aside in favor of it.
It's possible that he just plays up the foreign policy angle to deflect the idea that many people seem to have that he's too inexperienced at foreign policy to run the country, especially with the international political climate the way it is right now. However, if that is the reason he talks so much foreign policy then that does more to convince me that he is too inexperienced than the opposite (or that he's too disingenuous). He does have the charisma though, which Edwards kind of lacks.
Edwards strikes me as better at the deal brokering side of politics (in other words the actual getting things done part of the job). He's won a lot of trials and that's a skill that I think will translate. That means he's good at convincing people, even people who are specifically looking for holes in his arguments.
I think I'd vote for an Edwards/Obama ticket in either order, but I'd prefer it in that order. If it were Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton)...well I'd probably still vote for them, but if the opposing side were McCain/Hukabee I'd be very conflicted about it. Unfortunately I live in Washington and most elections are already decided long before my state turns blue (which it always does) on their little maps.
Those who know me are probably scratching their heads because they've heard me rail against idealism in politics and it's true; I've long said that one of the most important characteristics in a successful politician is the ability to compromise. The truth is that I believe it takes both and it's a delicate balance.
Bill Clinton's presidency is a great example. During his campaign he promised to reform health care. He appointed Hillary to that project and then when she came up with an overly ambitious proposal he passed on it. Could be that he just saw that there was no way it could pass or it could be that he traded it for political capital which he needed to broker bi-partisan deals in Congress and the Senate in order to balance the budget (which was another campaign promise of his). Either way he got the budget balanced and he didn't push the health care proposal which, as much as I love it, was never going to make it through.
Who knows? Maybe Bill came back and told the comittee (i.e. Hilllary) that they needed to scale back their proposal and Hillary stuck to her idealistic guns on that one. Maybe she was so disillusioned by the outcome that she lost her idealism all together. I can't say what went on in the back rooms and behind closed doors, but what I think is clear is that Bill Clinton had the right combination of idealism and pragmatism, he knew how to prioritize and when to compromise and how to get things accomplished. I consider that balanced budget the great legacy of the Clinton presidency and the prime example of the delicate balance it takes to get things done at the top level of legislature (or any level of legislature really). Hillary just doesn't have either of those qualities (idealism or pragmatism) now. I think she did once but not anymore.
So, if not Hillary, who do I support? Well I think it takes a lot of charisma to be president. A president has to be able to gain broad support from the general population of the country. Bill Clinton had that in spades as well. It also takes a different, and sort of opposite, kind of charisma. It takes an argumentative type of charisma. Congressman and senators either have that broad base garnering charisma or are at least familiar enough with it to be able to see through it easily. In order to broker deals with them a president has to be convincing not just to the public at large but to highly intelligent and inherently suspicious congressman and senators.
Obama certainly has the broad base appeal type of charisma. I think he may be a little too idealistic though. I doubt his ability to prioritize or maybe I just doubt what his priorities would be. He talks a lot about foreign policy which is definitely important but I wouldn't want to see domestic policy be pushed aside in favor of it.
It's possible that he just plays up the foreign policy angle to deflect the idea that many people seem to have that he's too inexperienced at foreign policy to run the country, especially with the international political climate the way it is right now. However, if that is the reason he talks so much foreign policy then that does more to convince me that he is too inexperienced than the opposite (or that he's too disingenuous). He does have the charisma though, which Edwards kind of lacks.
Edwards strikes me as better at the deal brokering side of politics (in other words the actual getting things done part of the job). He's won a lot of trials and that's a skill that I think will translate. That means he's good at convincing people, even people who are specifically looking for holes in his arguments.
I think I'd vote for an Edwards/Obama ticket in either order, but I'd prefer it in that order. If it were Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton)...well I'd probably still vote for them, but if the opposing side were McCain/Hukabee I'd be very conflicted about it. Unfortunately I live in Washington and most elections are already decided long before my state turns blue (which it always does) on their little maps.
posted by Beth at
11:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home