I can't believe the nonsense I'm reading in the press these days. David Geffen, Arianna Huffington, and the Hollywood elite are getting behind Obama because they have their misgivings about the Clintons. They forgot how good the Clinton presidency was to them, and to this country. They clamor for Hillary to apologize for giving the President authority to wage war in Iraq, when the majority of Americans supported the same thing based on the lies and misinformation our President was supplying at the time. It's ludicrous to think she should not have supported it, although some of us didn't, I don't blame anyone who did, if they felt that the evidence the President was giving was convincing. Remember, the President had promised not to wage war unless it was the last resort. That was his LI E, not any of the senators who voted for the resolution.
I have said here before that politics is the only place where it is unacceptable to learn from your mistakes and change your mind. Now you can add to it another crazy distortion; in politics these days, it seems, experience is considered a bad thing! Bob Herbert, the New York Times columnist, was writing today about Obama’s fresh ideas being a threat to Clinton's establishment attitude. This is of course nonsense. Voting someone in with no experience and good intentions usually leads to an ineffectual President; see Jimmy Carter. Inexperience is not a virtue. Senator Obama couldn't get a mid-management level position in a company with the amount of experience he has. People want to vote him in to the highest office in the most powerful nation in the world? If he's really a good person and has good ideas maybe someday he will become a good politician, who can work within government to build a concensus, and to put fourth reasoned ideas, and he may, someday, be electable. Obama talks about a new brand of politics. Funny, a first-termer, little experience, and he talks about new ideas and working together: sounds a lot like George W. Bush. If that doesn't scare you away from thinking Obama should be President, I don't know what would. Now I'm not saying Obama would make a bad President, I wouldn’t know. Neither would any of you. That's the point. After the primaries, in the general election, the Republicans would rip him apart. They'll take everything that the misguided Democrats in the primaries liked about him, and then convince the same people that those are all negatives, just like they've done many times in the past. When a seasoned politician like a McCain or Giuliani, will talk about their experiences and how they worked together for the betterment of this country, and then attack Obama for his lack of experience, especially in these “dangerous time” you will watch as the same people who voted for Obama will buy it, not vote for Obama in election, and will put in another misguided Republican administration that will bring us further down into a hole. What would Obama's slogan be? INEXPERIENCE THAT COUNTS! I HAVEN'T MADE ANY MISTAKES YET. MY BEST MISTAKES ARE AHEAD OF ME! On the other hand, Clinton is experienced, intelligent and talks about a lot of good ideas. Her experience has made her learn from her mistakes. I’ll bet, for example, her next healthcare reform proposals, while not as grand as they were in the early 90s, will probably be much more approachable. Mind you, I have never found anything to particularly like about her, or dislike, as I did not think about her very much at all. But now that thoughts turn to the next Presidential election, I have had to think about it, and I think she is probably the best candidate out there. It's not because I liked her husband so much though I did)that I think she should be in office, just to bring him back there too. No, I think she's proving to be the best qualified and electable candidate. Obama, just like John Edwards, only has style and no substance. Experience and compromise will bring legitimacy and wisdom. Someday both of them might be good candidates, but that day is far in the future.