Why is Barack Obama not winning handily in this Primary? Anywere I go on the net, and this includes mainstream "neutral" sites like iVillage, Barack is winning handily. He wins on the ability to unify America, the ability to implement change, on integrity, and on policy. So why is Hillary winning? My theory is that there are a lot of Democratic voters (I have a hunch that ironically many are urbanites who consider themselves to be sophisticated) who are poorly informed about the candidates. I believe that these folks are "off the grid." They have not engaged in any serious debate over the candidates. They have not carefully tracked the candidates' qualifications or positions. They think they are informed enough to cast an informed vote but in fact they are not familiar with critical portions of the candidates' records and positions. They may vote for a candidate on the basis of incorrect preconceived notions about "experience" or on the basis of gender or racial identity.
Is it a coincidence that Barack Obama won handily in Iowa where he was able to spend a good deal of time getting to know voters and to distinguish his views and record from those of Hillary Clinton? Viewed objectively Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate whose political strengths are not necessarily those which would make a good President. Namely, she runs on the fact that she is a woman and she is married to a former President.
On substance, I believe by any measure she is sorely lacking.
In the single most important vote of her brief career in elected office, she voted to empower Bush to wage a misguided preemptive war on Iraq that has turned out to be a costly disaster. After not admitting this error, Hillary Clinton followed up only last Fall by voting again for another Bush warmongering bill. This time the bill was against Iran to declare part of the Iranian military to be "terrorists." Technically, the law Hillary Clinton voted to enact last Fall was a declaration of war against Iran.
Her main opponent, Barack Obama, on the other hand, did not support the Iraq war. Obama did not support the Iraq war even though he knew he would be held immediately accountable in his political campaign for Senator at the time. Obama also did not vote for the more recent proposal that would enable Bush to attack Iran. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama has consistently argued that Iraq is a costly distraction from what should be our primary goal in eradicating the al Qaeda sect that attacked us. Since 9/11, this sect has reconstituted and its leader bin Ladin is plotting against America from an entirely different area in the Middle East along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. When Obama suggested the possibility of using force to strike at bin Ladin in this region, Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush attacked Obama as inexperienced. Now the Clintons, Bush and the CIA are all seriously considering implementing Obama's proposed strategy. Once again they are late to the table.
The other major initiative of Hillary Clinton's career -- to attempt to reform our broken health care system in the early 1990s -- also was a failure by any measure. The secretive process she led resulted in the proposal of a massive, albatross of a bill that was dead on arrival due to unchecked industry marketing and lobbying. Hillary Clinton's failure to reform health care was so great that the Clinton Administration gave up all serious attempts to reform health care and relegated the First Lady to visiting foreign dignitaries, presiding over several petty scandals (travelgate, recordgate, Vince Foster and the like), and defending President Clinton from impeachment and subsequent removal from office due to his admitted lying under oath in one of the several proceedings stemming from his illegal, sexual harassment and worse of many women.
In short, Hillary Clinton's "experience" consists of no major victories, several serious mistakes, and a coverup of illegalities committed by the President. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Hillary Clinton's experience in government has any positive value, which it does not, as Nicholas Kristof observed today, it is a matter of indisputable historical record that more often than not substantial political experience in Washington is an indicator that a politician will not be elected President or will make a poor one. http://www.nytimes.com/...
Hillary Clinton has an integrity problem. It is ironic that this supposed advancer of women's causes would not be in this race if she had not helped to cover up and excuse the illegal sexual harassment and worse that her husband used the power of the state to commit on several women. That is a fact. I wish it weren't. And former President Bill Clinton in turn is using the full extent of his prestige as an ex-President to promote his wife (see Obama himself on this http://rawstory.com/... ). Most Democrats like me would very much like to see a woman elected President, and would like to see an African American elected President, but not because of their gender or race - rather because they are the best candidate on substance.
Further, like our current President, including in his campaign against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, Hillary Clinton cannot see that her being elected President does not justify whatever means she thinks are necessary. Unfortunately these means include constantly reminding us of gender and race knowing that there are more women who will vote for her than blacks who will vote for Obama based on identity politics, diminishing the legacy of Dr. King for her political gain, saying students in Iowa should not be allowed to vote, repeatedly trying to smear Obama with drug charges or being Muslim (several in her campaign have been fired for that while other more powerful campaign members or supporters inexplicably have been excused), falsely telling New York voters that Obama does not support Israel (for better or worse he does - see http://www.nysun.com/... ), and trying to scare voters into believing terrorists will strike if we elect Obama. A few days ago outrageous robocalls smearing Obama by using his middle name were suspiciously deployed in Nevada.
I also question whether Hillary Clinton and her husband consistently state what they truly believe or whether they state what they think will be most politically successful for them. In a stark example of this just a few days ago, for example, Hillary Clinton ripped into Barack Obama because he observed that Reagan brought ideas to the Republican Party in a way that, for better or worse, changed America's course. Just a few weeks prior Hillary Clinton had said that Reagan was one of her favorite Presidents. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/... In 2002, Bill Clinton himself admitted that only shortly after his Presidency the Democrats were bereft of ideas. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/... Both Clintons had effusively praised Reagan around the time of his death. Did Hillary Clinton forget her praise of Reagan just a few days prior or did she think she would win more points by stating a different opinion? Hillary Clinton herself claims to be an "operating officer" who is detail oriented, which makes the answer is obvious.
On the critical issue of government transparency, Hillary Clinton is in no position to take a principled stand against Republican obfuscation of their numerous crimes. These crimes include torture, illegal spying on American citizens, outing and risking the lives of CIA agents for political payback, misusing the Justice Department to promote partisan political ends, kickback, graft, and coverup of widespread, massive incompetence. It is of utmost importance that America get to the bottom of these scandals in a way that everyone who can understands that it is for the good of America, and not one party or another. Hillary Clinton's record on transparency is more than troubling. Although Hillary Clinton says her experience as First Lady provides her with critical experience to be President that her Democratic opponents lack, she will not release her records until after the Primaries when it is too late for Democratic voters to judge her experience against her Democratic opponents'. In addition, She and Bill Clinton have a half a billion dollar charity whose records they will not disclose, which has employed key campaign staffers, and to which her campaign donors have given tens of millions of dollars. One of these donors to the "charity" also supplies Hillary Clinton with a jet to fly around in. Hillary and Bill Clinton's net worth is on par with Dick Cheney's and is well over $50 million. How did they get all this money? All the speaking engagements, the books, the appearances and the like which account for the bulk of their massive wealth are obviously due to their government "service."
On the issue of lobbyists, Hillary Clinton also has set the bar low. She is the only leading Democratic candidate to take lobbyist money this election. She apparently expects us to believe that lobbyists are foolish enough to give her hundreds of thousands of dollars without receiving anything in return. She also has ridiculed Obama's serious ethics reform laws by arguing that they contain a loophole for parties, as opposed to sit down meals. The laws Obama sponsored may not be perfect, but he succeeded in restricting gratuities like lobbyist meals and bringing transparency to many practices, such as lobbyist bundling. Obama also passed a law requiring the government to disclose all our taxpayer money spent on contractors. Obama also has bravely taken on the media last Fall, right in the middle of another election, by opposing media consolidation rules that would have allowed Rupert Murdoch to gain control over more and more of our broadcast stations and newspapers. In contrast, the Clintons appear regularly on Murdoch's Fox "News."
I believe that objectively Barack Obama is the one who stands the far greatest chance to unite America in the way that is needed to bring us together to support real and lasting change, not just a change back to Clinton in the Bush-Clinton cycle. http://www.dailykos.com/... This explains why JFK's former advisers support Obama, and not Clinton. This explains why the Clintons keep attacking Obama with phrases like "false hope" and "fairytales." Without hope of change, there can be no change. Without even reaching for greatness, we will never know whether it could have been achieved, just as it has been over and over throughout America's glorious history.
I do not understand how anyone can objectively believe that Hillary Clinton is as promising a candidate as Barack Obama. I have heard the arguments. They are not really logical. They are an appeal to identity politics, to the gut. The only measure we really have of a politician is her or his integrity, a large measure of which is their conduct in political campaigns and their record. When Bush pulled low blows in the 2000 campaign and given his questionable record in Texas, America should have been onto him - that his many promises such as "no nation building" and a conservatism that was "compassionate" would turn out to be lies. I pray America is not making the same type of mistake in not closely scrutinizing our Presidential candidates.