After watching the democrats debate in New Hampshire, I am convinced that out of those four candidates, Clinton would make the best president. Her responses were the most substantive and she actually presented specific strategies for dealing with the issues that were brought up. Obama, Edwards, and Richardson didn’t “wow” me much. Obama is charismatic and speaks with great conviction, so I do understand why he is the front-runner. I also don’t deny that he genuinely believes in and wants the change he is talking about, but I think Clinton’s knowledge of Washington and global political issues would make her a much better president than any of the other three candidates. Watch the debate and decide for yourself. I myself was surprised at how impressed I was by Clinton. I really thought that I would have a hard time choosing between her and Obama, but I didn’t. Clinton’s political positions and solutions cannot be reduced to a sound byte, and I guess that’s a negative in our country.
I agree wholeheartedly with Gloria Steinem in her op-ed in the NYTimes today about Obama and Clinton. She says:
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
2 responses so far ↓
amazingcharlotte // January 12, 2008 at 7:51 pm
well thought out–thank you
Jean-Jerome Peytavi // January 26, 2008 at 2:57 am
An insightful post. Race and gender are obviously central to the campaign, but let’s not forget a too-often-overlooked factor: nationality. As a Frenchman, I have been dismayed to not hear either Clinton or Obama say a word about the impact that shifting notions of French identity will have on the future of U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Clinton, as you suggest, seems better poised to recognize the import of this factor and act accordingly, but I’d like to hear her address the issue head-on.
Merci,
J-J