This message was self-deleted by its author

[Savannahmann]

38. I don't believe I have done so.

Nor have I alluded to that in any of my posts. I offered a possibility, a possible explanation, and listed it as a possibility.

I took the effort to outline the three reasons that I could see that caused her to change her mind. Secretary Clinton has not said which it was. But that does not make the question irrelevant. If anything, it leaves us to fill in the blanks. By taking more than one statement, we attempt to get to know a person, to judge if they are worthy of our entrusting them with the most powerful office in the world.

The reason this is being discussed is not because Hillary is formerly Secretary of State Clinton living out her years in retirement. But because we expect her to run for that highest of all offices. What kind of a person will we entrust that office to is a question that many of us have. We know what happens when we choose the wrong person. Both Bush's, Reagan, Nixon, and let's not forget LBJ. We know what happens when we entrust the office to a person with Morals and a sense of right and wrong. Carter, Clinton, JFK, Truman, and I could go on and on.

So what kind of a person is Secretary Clinton? What are her motivating factors? Does she want the office for the power? Or does she want it to serve the people, or a higher ideal? What motivates her.

I have posted before about one of the most unappreciated but in my mind the most moral of Presidents in the form of Jimmy Carter. During the energy crisis, he responded as he advised us to. He led by example, turning the heat down, putting a sweater on, to save energy. He got rid of the perks and the gold trimmed coffee cups and plates on Air Force One. Unwilling to surround himself with luxury while the nation suffered the Recession. Only Jimmy Carter could have gone to Three Mile Island, and he did. He walked to the doorway of a demon and stood there announcing that the demon was contained. We were safe, because he said so. That is moral strength, and that is the definition of leadership. Of never asking someone to do something you are unwilling to do. Jimmy Carter led by example, and should go down as a damn fine President because of it. Sadly he won't be remembered by History that way, but he should be.

I'm not sure where President Obama will fall as judged by History. I'd like to think he would be remembered as a good one. But time and the release of documents to give us a glimpse into the workings of his mind will need to come first.

So we return to the original question, and why it is important. What kind of President would Secretary Clinton be? To get an idea, we need to know as much as we can, so we can make the decision to support her over another candidate, or to offer our support to another. We all evolve, we all grow on issues. The weakest of all reasons is because everyone else believes this way so I do too. If that is all that is motivating Secretary Clinton, then my support will be as shallow as her beliefs are. I want to believe the best about her motivations, about her principles. But in the end, I'll cast my primary support behind the candidate that I believe will make the best choices, not because they are popular, but because they honestly believe that the choice is the right one to make. In the end, I want the principled leader to be the Democratic Nominee, and the next President.