|
This is another "indecision point" that has been rattling around in my brain for some time. Fair warning: I'm probably gonna ramble a bit, because that's what my thoughts are doing...
One, I've said frequently that I like both our remaining candidates, and have not been able to "pick one" to support, so I'll just wait for "the (other) people" to decide who our nominee is. IMHO, either could, I think, be an awesome president. Either will also, of course be "The First _____ President."
Some of the other things feeding my inability to decide are that I'm still a bit miffed at Obama for taking his name off the Michigan ballot to pander to Iowa... and I'm a little nervous about his lack of deep national-policy experience...
but that doesn't mean I don't see his potential to be a truly transformative figure in our country. I'm excited beyond words at the idea that he could possibly bring independents and disenfranchised moderate Repubs to our side of the political equation. What a tremendous opportunity to tip the balance of the country back toward progressive policies!
I'm also dismayed at Hillary's heavy-handed clumsiness when her political fortunes started fading a bit... I thought she'd be more agile in dealing with any set-backs...
but that doesn't mean I don't see and celebrate the fact that's she's a T.O.B.* who really, really knows her shit. Campaign stumbles aside, she really has mastered all the details of policy. She's a wonk, and a really TOUGH wonk. Those qualities will be TREMENDOUSLY important for our next president, and IMHO, such qualities are even more important for "a First" of any kind. There can be no avoidable errors for "a first." That's just the way it is, for "firsts."
And therein lies the "indecision point."
(Background: I started my career when the Equal Opportunity laws started being actually enforced (though they were passed in the 60s, there were really no "enforcement teeth" to the laws until the 70s). I frequently saw the "good ole boys" (and some "good ole girls) chortle at any failures of the "one of them" (whichever "them" it was, though I admit, being a woman, I noticed the "women-them" more than the "minority-them") they hired, because they saw those failures as their ticket out of ever having to hire/promote "One Of Them" again.)
I'm not saying either Obama or Hillary will fail... I hope they don't, and I truly believe either of them *could* succeed beyond my wildest dreams. But. I firmly believe that Bush and the pukes (those are the bad Republicans, not the good ones that are aghast at what the pukes have done) are expecting a Democrat to be elected, and are doing all they can to set them up to fail. Hopefully, their machinations won't work. But what if they do? What if "The First _______ President" becomes a symbol/example to the bigots for why ________ just aren't up to the job?
Note, this isn't a question about which one I'd rather see or not see as "the symbol" for the bigots... most bigots have always lumped "women and minorities" together as targets for their bigotry, so the failure of one will reflect the same "symbolism" on the other.
No, my question--the one I've not been able to resolve in either candidate's favor--is, which candidate's skills/qualities are more likely to prevent the puke/bush machinations from succeeding? Obama's charisma, keeping people on his side no matter what shenanigans the pukes pull, or Clinton's mastery of the intricacies of policy short-circuiting whatever shenanigans they try to pull?
I really don't know, and can't resolve this, so I thought I'd throw the question out and see what others think about it.
* The name of an internet "club" I used to belong to, and (I know I'm risking the cries of sexism, here) means "Tough Old Broad" -- even though she's not old, she's older than me, and if I can be a T.O.B., than so can she.
|