So, am I the only one who thinks both candidates are qualified to be President?

Political Heretic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Mar-10-08 11:02 PM
Original message

So, am I the only one who thinks both candidates are qualified to be President?

Yes I understand that this is longer than the attention span of your average GD: P fighter, but I'm writing it anyway

I'm really sad that the theme of the campaigns has turned into who is qualified to be president and who isn't. I think it distracts from the more serious issues and (I believe) real differences between the two candidates.

I think Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president. I believe in trying to make the case for her experience by way of attempting to diminish the qualifications of Obama has been a mistake. She has ended up having to really stretch the truth in certain areas, particularly in foreign policy experience, in order to paint herself as the ultimate expert in the nation and paint Obama as completely lacking.

The truth is, Hillary Clinton has a lifetime of public service involvement, either as first lady or senator or otherwise. That experience counts, and in my book more that qualifies her for President. She doesn't need to pretend that she's had major roles in all kinds of foreign policy when she hasn't. She doesn't need to exaggerate her role as first lady. She's already accomplished, and well experienced in Washington. She understands international relations well enough to be qualified to run, and her time as Senator certainly makes her acquainted enough with national politics to run for President.

Likewise, Obama's biggest problem is not that he doesn't have the experience to be President - he does. His biggest challenge is the way that he has thrown the democratic political establishment on its head. I am not for one minute suggesting that Obama is a leftist - he is certainly not. He is a center-left moderate. However, he is an "outsider" in the sense that his campaign success has been built from the ground up, rather than from the top down, and this is very tumultuous for long time entrenched establishment party figures, including those in the Clinton campaign.

I also believe Obama is qualified to be President. He too has had a long history of public service. His time in state and national legislature serves him well and gives him knowledge and experience with how to get things done. Both he and Hillary Clinton, truth be told, are basically on the same plan when it comes to foreign policy preparedness. And in reality, the most important questions we could have answered if we really wanted to know how effective either candidate would be in foreign policy would be: who will they appoint as Secretary of State, Defense, and Attorney General. Who will be their Chief of Staff? Those are the things we would really need to know to have an honest picture of which candidate would be the better executive when it comes to foreign policy.

Maybe I measure qualifications for Presidency different than other people

To me, the office of the Presidency of the United States is about leadership. Leadership is more about character and more about values than it is about experience. Our country has had brilliant leaders who had very little experience coming into the job, and our country has had horrible leaders with a lifetime of experience coming into the job.

Leadership is about character, values, vision and judgment. And this is where I believe the two candidates differ most. I believe that Hillary Clinton represents leadership that would be strong in maintaining the status quo, maintaining the basic structure and direction of the Democratic Party, and empowering the same old Washington establishment players. I believe her administration would be about a few bold initiatives - such as health care reform - but ultimately be about business as usual. I think either she or Obama would be more likely to keep us out of unnecessary wars than McCain, and more likely to have a slightly greater domestic policy focus. But I don't think there would be much about her Presidency that would do anything to transform the Democratic Party into a Party ready to lead America in the 21st century. I don't think there would be much about her Presidency that would shift the cultural climate of America back toward the left of center. And I don't think there would be much about her Presidency that would pave the way for the next level of slightly more liberal or "progressive" candidates for President.

On the other hand, I believe that an Obama presidency would do many of those things. I don't believe that Obama himself is some kind of messiah that will single handedly save the country or revolutionize everything in four or eight years. That's not why I support him. I support him because I believe that he has the character, values and vision to mobilize ordinary Americans. Taking a page out of George Lakoffs book I think he is the first Democrat in a long time to be able to persuade real people. I don't believe his idea of Unity means "capitulating" to Washington Republicans. Everything he is about constantly reinforces the belief that he is about moving the American center slightly to the left, helping create a political language in which ideas that make sense for all Americans aren't "liberal" ideas (in the negative sense in which the word has been framed) - they are just AMERICAN ideas.

America needs inspirational visionary leaders, and I think its a shame so many have scoffed at that. I don't believe his vision or inspiration is empty. He has been pretty clear about what that vision is. It's a vision where Democrats can finally, finally re-frame the issues and take that back from republicans. Public education is an AMERICAN interest. Basic health care for all is an AMERICAN interest. Ethics in Washington and an Open government is an AMERICAN interest. Promoting real security rather than reckless offensive wars around the world is an AMERICAN interest. I believe Obama is the kind of leader with the capability to start a cultural shift back from all the ground we've lost in the last thirty years.

And I believe Obama has the vision and character to transform the party into a party that can compete in the 21st century. Never in my life time has the party been in more need of a changing of the guard. The old establishment has become so entrenched with capitulators that it can hardly get anything done. Money and powerful interests rule the day. I believe that Obama and Dean share a similar vision for a transformed party, and with Obama's charisma and passion, I believe that we can elect a new generation of party representatives and establish a new generation of party leaders ready for the work of tomorrow, not the MAINTAINING OF RELICS OF THE PAST.

I believe that Obama's years as president would be about paving the way - among the people and within the party, toward the presidency of 2016 and I believe in that year, with the work of the Obama administration in place, we could be ready to nominate and elect a true, honest to god liberal.

I think both candidates are qualified. But I know EXACTLY why I support one over the other.