Hope Stirs the Heart-strings, But America Needs Experience

I know all about Hope. Heck I even have a Signs Of Hope gift shop web site. (Don't Order anything cause the shopping cart is broke and I just want to make a point.)

I believe in hope as I am more optimistic than fatalistic. I've been hoping most of my life for one thing or another to change or get better.

I can't tell you how many times a sweet talking man seduced me by hope for love, always thinking, "This guy is the one."

Dreamers make good lovers but aren't so great at producing real results.

I love Obama. He is my second choice. But we need a seasoned worker on Day One to get the mess George Bushco has made in the world and our government.

Samples of some Signs of Hope:

Hope is Free.. Hope for Peace.. Hope Will Keep You Going.. Hope Will Keep You Growing.. Hope is an Energy Source.. Hope is Endless.. Hope Will Find the Answer.. Hope will Manifest Your Desires.. Hope Will Find the Way.. Hope is the Way.. Don’t Lose Hope.. Don’t Forget to Hope.. Live Your Hope.. Think Your Hope.. Thank Your Hope.. Practice Hope.. Live With Hope.. Hope For Change.. Hope Springs Eternal.. Hope for the Best.. Never Lose Hope, Believe in Hope.. Hope is Powerful.. Dance with Hope.. Everyone Can Hope.. Keep Hope Alive.. Hope Inspires.. Hope You Feel Better.. Happiness is Hope.. Hope is Good.. Hope Sincerely.. Hope It And It Will Come.. Look for Hope.. To Hope is to Believe.. Trust Your Hope.. Express Your Hope.. Hope to Know.. Hope Brings Joy..Wishing and Hoping.. Hope shines.. Hope lifts all burdens.. Hope is Buoyant.. Rays of Hope.. Hope is contagious.. Put Hope back in your vocabulary, Hope finds the way,, Hope opens doors.. Hope makes it happen.. Hope I make you happy.. Hope knows no boundaries.. Glimmers of Hope.. There's always Hope.. Hope keeps us alive.. Hope repairs despair...

As much as I, too, am inspired by Barak's words of hope and change, I also see too much cocky talk and walk. And I fear that we will soon tire of hearing a new president stand at the podium often spouting hope and change and nothing really getting done or fixed.

Edwards might even get more done than Obama, and I am not crazy about having another rich white man in the White House. Obama would make a great and inspiring Ambassador for the World; Edwards would be a great Attorney General, but Hillary is the answer this time around for President.

Please consider the reality of what is needed more than what is wanted in the United States right now.

I watched Hillary do a mostly Questions and Answers at Merrimack Valley High School in Penacook, NH yesterday on CSPAN. I was impressed and she too, stirred my hope strings.

•  hope tips please

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:21:44 AM PDT

•  About That Experience Thingy .......

  by WeBetterWinThisTime on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:23:56 AM PDT

  •  Bill had it, didn't he?

    Hillary just doesn't.

    by Lepanto on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:38:14 AM PDT

  •  thank you for posting that

    experience is often over-played in the blogosphere and never really defined.   What does it mean to have experience?  Experience in Washington?   Experience in the Oval office?  If that the case than probably 80% of the former presidents should have never been there...    why not just get rid of the 22nd amendment and keep re-electing the same person because they are the most experienced at being president ?!

    by soros on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:04:27 AM PDT

•  What we need is REAL change

  What we don't need is a Senator who voted (effectively) to authorize war with Iran, is buddies with Rupert Murdoch, and is big corporations' favorite Democrat.

  I do think of what the USA needs right now.  In '92 we needed pragmatism, and HRC's husband was a very good choice.  In '08 we need someone who despises the Dubya administration and will fight the Repugs and the corporations every step of the way.

  We need John Edwards.

  If we can't have Edwards, Obama will do.  It's time to close the book on the DLC and corporate cozying, though.  We need foremost of all, a populist revolt against big corporations.  That is not Hillary.

  by CenterLeft on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:30:48 AM PDT

  •  No one authorized a war in Iran

    that was to make note that a group in Iran (I forget the name) was labeled a terrorist group and congress stopped their access to money.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:32:59 AM PDT

    •  But the resolution,

      Drafted by neocons Loserman and Kyl, stated that Iran was helping terrosists in Iraq, which combined with the Iraq War resolution, will be taken by Dubya as giving him authorization to take military action.

      It could have been a benign resolution if it were like one that had mostly Dem support before it, but the words "Nothing in this resolution shall be taken to authorize the use of military force against Iran" was intentionally omitted.

      by CenterLeft on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:56:31 AM PDT

      •  Obama wasn't present to vote on that

        because he was busy campaigning for president.
        However, he did sign on as a co-sponsor to S 970, which stated:

        The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).

        http://thomas.loc.gov/...

        Here's what General Clark said about Clinton's support for K-L:

        There is nothing in the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman bill that would give President Bush any authority whatsoever to go to war. Sen. Richard Durbin joined Senator Clinton in supporting this legislation and said, "if I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no." Sen. Carl Levin, who, like Senator Durbin, did not vote for the 2002 Iraq resolution, also joined Senator Clinton in supporting this bill.

        In fact, Senator Clinton has spoken out early and forcefully, warning in February that President Bush does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without congressional authorization.

        http://www.unionleader.com/...

        by skohayes on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:29:25 AM PDT

        •  The one he signed onto said

          specifically, "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as giving the president authority to use military force against Iran."

          That language was not in the bill that Loserman wrote and Hillary voted for.

          Why did Loserman and the other neocons shut down the alternative that Obama, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. supported if it wasn't to get that sentence out of the bill?

          And why did Hillary back Loserman's version?

          And by the way, where was she (or Obama, actually) campaigning for the Democratic nominee Ned Lamont against neoconservative traitor Loserman in '06 when Edwards managed to make it there?

          by CenterLeft on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:59:57 AM PDT

  •  I so much trust Edwards for Attorney General nt

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:44:18 AM PDT

•  If only experienced people got jobs,

  nobody would ever have the chance to acquire experience.

  No presidential candidate running for his first term of office has the experience of being president. So, what do we do, elect nobody?

  We need fresh vision, not tired old "having been around".

  by Lepanto on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:36:28 AM PDT

•  We've had experience for the last 8 years

  by ParaHammer on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:39:16 AM PDT

•  I heard him hint,on TomJoynerinterview, woman VP

  there was a question poised by Cybil to Obama about his "ticket", and he mentioned a "strong women and men" as a running mate.  Note women mentioned first and foremost.

  Oprah would heartily advise and consent to such a move.  His campaign is mach speed ahead on strategy, and it would be a very pleasant development to crash two glass ceilings simultaneously.

  Just a hint, mind you, but if he DID choose a proven woman governor early on, GAME/SET/MATCH.

  by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:42:51 AM PDT

  •  There are two

    Napolitano of AZ and Sebelius of Kansas.
    Both red states that can turn blue.
    Obama's mother was from Kansas.

    by ParaHammer on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:46:19 AM PDT

    •  Who is today's Ann Richards?

      Need some scathing wit to bop any DanQuayle wannabe.

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:02:03 AM PDT

•  I'm not impressed by this argument

  Rosie-- I like you and respect you, but I don't think you've made any sort of genuine argument here.   You don't provide anything of substance to suggest Clinton as a better candidate than Edwards or Obama, nor do you draw any meaningful contrast between them.  

  You throw out one comment about Edwards wealth, which doesn't say anything about the qualities he'd make as a president.

  I just don't get the point of this diary other than to say "Hillary's better than you think and Obama is worse than you think" without any further substance.

  by juliewolf on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:43:36 AM PDT

  •  Not an arguement-just my thoughts on the hope

    thing.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:47:40 AM PDT

    •  I hope too.

      I hope the citizens of this country get more engaged and see what real change is made of.  We cannot talk about change and negotiate for it.  We must insist.  I'm ready to back insisting.

      by funluvn1 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:00:45 AM PDT

•  On "experience".

  One of our best presidents was a single term Congressman and failed senatorial candidate from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln while one of the worst, at least until the present day was his immediate predecessor in the office James Buchannan a man vastly more "experienced" was an impressive resume. What matters is not so much experience but the ability to lead and the wisdom and courage to lead in the right direction. Any of our Democratic candidates is an improvement over the republican brand despite any insignificant issues of "experience".

  by irate on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:49:15 AM PDT

•  If experience matters....

  Then vote Bill Richardson.

  by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:02:58 AM PDT

  •  How can Clinton claim more experience

    than Obama or Edwards? That's a real head scratcher for me. Being married to someone in public service somehow just doesn't cut it.

    by elmo on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:27:55 AM PDT

    •  Re-elected to Senate

      only one of those three to have that distinction.
      Since Watergate has worked in government.
      Part of the legal team investigating Nixon.

      by wtxdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:02:53 AM PDT

      •  First Lady experience?

        Really?  Does that count?  So under your theory, she is accountable for:

        NAFTA

        The rise of the prison industrial complex

        Half a million dead Iraqi kids due to US led sanctions, a price Madelyn "War Profiteer"  Albright said was "worth it"  

        The unleashing of GMOs

        SUVs exempt from mileage requirements

        WTO and World Bank preeminence

        Yes, this nation is crying out for more of these types of experiences.

        by SmedleyButlerUSMC on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:14:01 AM PDT

•  Didn't Hillary Already Start 4 Years Ago?

  When will she get going on the changing/fixing/whatever she's calling it now bit?

  The last 4 years being her most related experience to the seat she seeks, how is it that she is THE one on the stage that enabled the Administration the most?

  Is she going to take this long to solve anything when she gets another seat in?

  And how can she do any better if she hasn't used her art of persuasion for anyone but herself?

  by MoNut on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:17:03 AM PDT

•  Yes but...

  Can't we hope to experience the fight of change?  Or atleast experience the hope to change the fight.  But those of you all who think we should change the experience that fights for hope can go to hell, you bushlovers.

  by scionkirk on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:23:59 AM PDT

•  One more on that experience thing

  How much experience, in the traditional sense, do any of the top three candidates have?  By November 08, today's top three candidates will have served a total of 8 (Clinton), 6 (Edwards) and 4 (Obama) years in the Senate.  A couple of days ago, two candidates dropped out, each of whom has served more time in the Senate than all three of the leaders combined, and one of whom has served in the Senate twice as long as all of them combined. So much for that sort of experience.

  How about ranking them by other measures where their experience might also be relevant?

  • Experience in elected office: Obama is ahead here, followed by Clinton, then Edwards.  His 7 years in Illinois State Senate count for something, don't they?

  • Experience near elected office: Clinton for sure, followed by Obama and Edwards.
    
  • Experience in the heat of national spotlight: Clinton (obviously), Edwards, Obama
    
  • Experience in service of the common person: here I have to give it to Edwards, though all three have devoted themselves to the greater good.
    
  • Experience in government service: Here I think one has to count Clinton's time in her husband's administrations.  Even when not in an official capacity, she devoted herself to the cause.  But Obama's professional life has also been in large measure to that end.
  
  

  I know there are a lot of diaries asking pointed questions about the meaning of "change", but I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for some clarification on the meaning of "experience".

  by fightcentristbias on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:51:11 AM PDT

•  I think...

  That it's foolish to assume that Obama is the one to come out on the bad side of the experience comparison.  

  by brillo on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:51:12 AM PDT

•  Hope and Inspiration Can Propel Change

  If you want the people to have your back.

  Which certainly won't happen by calling any hope they may yet contain as "false" and "hopeless".

  Especially when it's coming from the one in the most change operative "experienced" position who seems to be spinning in place.

  by MoNut on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:51:20 AM PDT

•  Does Experience Mean Comfortable?

  Cuz we sure haven't seen much of the changing in the recent.

  by MoNut on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:53:22 AM PDT

•  "America needs Experience"

  and that is why I think this: I think that our fiscal state is so f***ed that no matter who does what next, the economy is goin' down, and the next President will be saddled with the blame because it falls on their watch. And so, as far as experience in dealing with bad times, crooked banks and corporations, and bad PR- Dennis Kucinich had a dress rehearsal demonstration of how he can handle things with integrity. He is our Energizer Bunny and the only Dem clean enough to come out the other side unscathed and save out country for the People.

  by peaceloveandkucinich on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:59:24 AM PDT

•  So, you want Richardson?

  More experience than any of the other Democrats running.  4 years as Governor and 15 in the House.

  by plf515 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:07:01 AM PDT

•  If experience is the thing:

  Senator Byrd Prez by acclamation !!!!

  by Lepanto on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:36:44 AM PDT

•  "Experience" at WHAT, exactly?

  Triangulation?  Yep.  She's experienced.

  Standing there for photo ops flanked by a war criminal accomplice,  Madelyn Albright,  who commented that half a million dead Iraqi children was a price that was "worth it"  for Clinton's sanctions against Iraq?  Yep.  She gets it.  Great experience.

  Being a virtuoso on an out of tune political piano?  Uh huh.  She has a real experience edge.  

  Genuflecting to Wal Mart and Rupert Murdoch?  She has great experience.

  She's the one for experience.

  by SmedleyButlerUSMC on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:58:05 AM PDT

•  You Know,

  There are an awful lot of losing football teams with very experienced quarterbacks.

  Experience without hope seems to be Clinton's message.  

  I think Americans are smart about this, and view her claim as a bit of hogwash.  At best her experience is seen as the status quo, which bad for Clinton, lumps hers in with what we have in the WH now.

  Clinton has no right to just waltz into the WH based on the claim she has experience.  What matters is the value added of that background, and if it represents a future course Americans want.  

  Clinton, according to her PR, is a fine Senator.  Not a move happens there without her personal oversight.  Given that, maybe she needs to apply her experience there.  Let the guys with hope run the country.  Ironically, her husband played up hope as a major theme in his 92' campaign.

  by vetman on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:48:09 AM PDT