I've often been asked, as a Clinton supporter, how I can support her. It is a question that has always amused me -- it's like asking someone why they like chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream. They're both pretty good, but there's just one that hits the spot better than the other.
So that is what I want to address in my final primary diary. I want to talk about my support of Mrs. Clinton, and my possible support for Mr. Obama -- two great choices.
The ice cream analogy may seem silly, but it is appropriate. I enjoy both flavors in their own way. Chocolate is completely enjoyable, but I prefer vanilla if given the choice. That applies to my support for Mrs. Clinton.
So, I'm going to address a few points from anti-Clinton people. Hopefully, it will give you insight into just one of many people that support one of two great candidates. I will do this in a discussion format.
Clinton supported going to Iraq!
You know what? I did too. Many of you anti-war folks will say I'm a hawk. I'm not. I'm rather against war, but I was told that Iraq was a legitimate threat. I didn't trust Bush's word. As he spoke, I could tell something was wrong. I did not trust Ms. Rice's word, Mr. Cheney's, or anyone else's. I based my support upon a person I respected then, and I respect now.
I trusted Colin Powell. I was certainly not right in the matter, but was I wrong? It's harder to state that. Saddam Hussein is out of power, and that's a great thing. The problem is two-fold, in my mind:
One, the premise was incorrect. We went to war based upon stories of WMD ready to attack us. I trusted the word of Colin Powell in this matter.
Two, after we got there, we screwed it up. I would go further in my wording, and use more harsh words. The reality is that we had a great opportunity, and we've squandered that opportunity that was presented to us.
So what does this have to do with Clinton? How can I pretend that she has no ability for judgment when I would have made the same call? I cannot.
But you didn't have to make a vote.
Neither did Barack Obama, he merely gave a speech. Much like I do right now, at a time when it is unpopular to say "I supported the war." Hillary Clinton made a decision she thought was right at a time of huge pressures, and even larger demands. I cannot fault her decision, much like I cannot fault Obama's. Both made the decision, or speech, they felt was right.
Both had noble deeds in their heart, in my opinion. I don't even blame Gen. Powell. I blame George W. Bush for lying to us, wasting the opportunity born from that lie, and leaving it to us as Americans.
So you support Clinton because she voted for war?
No. I'm saying this point did not factor into my decision-making. She voted as she thought was right. He gave the speech he thought was right.
But it's her judgment! A president should be right on day one, not just ready.
No human on this Earth has ever been, or will ever be, right 100% of the time. It's impossible. If you are a person of Christian faith, not even Jesus was right 100% of the time. No one is right all of the time.
Since we all make mistakes, the key is learning from them. I feel that Clinton has learned that mistake.
She voted for a sanction against Iran! She learned nothing!
Maybe, but she voted for a non-binding resolution against an entity that has had ties to Hezbollah, Hamas, and is pretty deeply rooted in the nuclear program problem. It's a difficult issue, in my mind. You can't just sit by and let this group think you won't get tough. Yet, Bush can construe anything he wants in any way he wants.
I'm not comfortable with her vote against Iran, but I can see her point as well. I would have rather she didn't vote as she did, but we must also keep in mind the reality of the nonbinding part of this bill.
So you're making excuses for her!
No, she made her own excuse. I am merely seeing this vote from more than my view. I would rather have a president willing to go to war should it be needed. I may not be a hawk, but we need to remember that we can no longer be isolationist doves.
I took one lesson from 9/11, keeping your head in the sand isn't always good. Sometimes, you must consider the unsavory.
Hillary and her husband are racists, they said...
This one is a new one to me. As an Arkansan, I witnessed Bill's work with minorities. As President, his care for minorities was clear, even if he wanted to remove things like affirmative action. You know the funny part? Hillary Clinton was opposed to him considering it.
I read many of the quotes, and it amazed me how quickly they were twisted. As someone from Arkansas, I am privvy to racism every day. The "n" word is still used by many here. Asians, Latinos, blacks, gays, and other minorities are treated as subhuman by many older people and some younger voters. Mine has been a life to overcome such things.
Yet never once did I see their comments as racist. They were factually true. Jesse Jackson did win in South Carolina, and he lost elsewhere. Lyndon B. Johnson was critical to getting legislation enacted for equality and civil rights, something Martin Luther King Jr. could never have done.
Yet, it was shouted from the rooftops that the Clinton family was now racist. They "race-baited", and I couldn't help but scratch my head. While this happened, Michelle Obama remarked "There ain't no black people in Iowa!" Did I think that was racist? No. Did I think it was race-baiting? No.
Barack Obama called himself a "brother" multiple times. Was that racist? No. Was that race-baiting? No.
So what is my point? All of these quotes are moments. They are seconds. To apply them so generally is to do a disservice for all of those involved. These are quotes analyzed through a microscope. To me, it's wrong to call any of these four names because of a comment.
We must hold them accountable for their words!
Does anyone follow you around 24/7 and hold you responsible for every utterance? No. We are composed of so much more than quotes and sound bytes. That is true for both of Clinton and Obama. They are, to me, much more than quotes. They have ideas, plans, and desires that go past a single quote. I think this microscopic punditry is one of the many things that make elections difficult. We are too busy focusing on the tree in front of us, but there's an entire forest which demands our view.
Mark Penn said...
Mark Penn is an idiot. The day I listen to him on anything is the day I eat my hand. It is the one thing I fault Clinton for in this election -- she should have fired him after New Hampshire. No, wait. She should have laughed when she saw his pay demands.
She has poor judgment! See!
No. I don't see. I refer back to my previous article about being much more than moments. We are not a creature defined by one or two moments. We are defined by many moments, decisions, and ideas. I take the whole candidate, so I do not buy into this idea that Clinton or Obama has bad judgment because of one or two decisions.
Mr. Obama, as a youth, took drugs. He became, in his own terms, and addict and could have lost his life. By any measure, this is a bad judgment. Does that mean he has horrible judgment? No. He is not defined by merely one moment.
So, Clintonista, what does define Clinton for you?
Mainly, her plan on education. She has a great plan for community colleges, which I am a huge proponent of. She also has given some attention to special education, which is often completely ignored by a candidate. She also wants to aim for assistance in drop out rates for all students. She advocates small classrooms. These are all things that I feel will improve my #1 issue -- Education.
There's one, however, that truly defined her from Obama. She has stated she wants to either completely scrap or completely rewrite No Child Left Behind. Obama, however, only lists that he wants to reform or properly fund it. I am opposed, greatly, to NCLB. So this helped me make up my mind.
One issue!? What about...
Many issues. I agree with her stances on Abortion, trade, education, economy, health care, energy, gun control, and immigration. Conversely, I agree with Obama on half of his stances on this issue. I simply believe Clinton is closer to what I want.
Will you vote for Obama when he wins?!
First, we need to allow all states to vote before we start declaring winners. I have never been a fan of exit poll predictions, nor have I been a large fan of demanding candidates leave the race. It is their right to run, much like it is my right to vote. If Obama wins, I will possibly vote for him as a Clinton supporter. I do not agree with him on everything. I agree with him more than John McCain, though.
Possibly?! You're ruining our chances!
Obama could turn out to be an alien who is mind controlling us all. I don't want to vote for an alien who is mind controlling us all.
Or a man who can hold so much in his pockets.
So what exactly is my point through all of this? These two candidates are so much more than their latest quote. They have helped each other, they have fought, and they have great ideas. My choice happened to be for Hillary Clinton. I think we've lost the importance of having that choice. I respect Hillary Clinton, and I respect Barack Obama. I think we should respect them both, and allow this race to play out.
They are both candidates who are much more than the latest quote. Neither of them are evil. Neither of them want bad things for our country. We have been absolutely lucky to have two great candidates who want to move this country from 8 years of failure.
They both want health care, they both want education changes, they both want to end the war in Iraq. These are three things that no Republican is willing to bring to a head.
If that candidate is Hillary Clinton, so be it. If that candidate is Barack Obama, so be it. As Mrs. Clinton said, we'll be fine either way.
Finally, I want to say one thing about the debate last night. Many people are giving Hillary Clinton flak over a few moments in the debate. They're saying she was too combative with Tim Russert. My reply? Wouldn't you want to smack him, too?
And in response to the Farrakhan comments from Clinton, I really saw this as helpful to Obama. This was something Republicans could have hammered in general election. He sounded, to me, like he was saying "I don't want the endorsement, but I'm not going to say 'No thanks'." It sounded a politician's answer. Clinton, to me, was telling Obama that you can reject the endorsement on principle and still be able to win. In that moment, I saw something few others saw. I saw two people working together by seeing things in two different ways, but both came to a resolution that only helped Obama. It also managed to shut Tim Russert up, and I couldn't be happier about that.
To my fellow Clinton supporters, I say that it's been a great ride. We'll see if it continues. I hope it does, because I want 50 states to choose the candidate.
To Obama supporters, good luck! We'll see what happens.
To the most extreme of the two, please lighten up. Stop picking every quote over like it were a carcass for dinner. You give progressives and independents a bad name. You continue on vicious political systems of old, and you make the candidates look bad. They make mistakes enough, we don't need someone magnifying everything 1000x.
And to you poll jockeys like myself, don't forget the trends are more important than and singular poll...and don't forget that polls can be wrong!
I apologize that this seemed to skip all over the place. I had a lot I wanted to say. This will, indeed, be my final diary on the primary. I want to end by saying that we have two really awesome candidates. Though their supporters make me want to rip out my hair, we really have a great choice. These two candidates have little that is truly negative. In 2000, I knew it was a choice between two evils. In 2004, the same was true. This year, we have two good versus one really horrible choice. I think we need to celebrate that.
I also happen to really love cheesecake.