Primary Reaction: My Problems with Hillary Clinton

The First Woman President?

While I would truly like to see the US elect a woman president, I believe that the first one should be so extraordinary that she transcends gender stereotypes. I liken it to asking African Americans who would you rather the first African American Supreme Court Justice had been: Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas? Who would you rather the first African American baseball player had been: Jackie Robinson or Barry Bonds? How proud would women feel if Harriet Meyers had been the first female Supreme Court Justice instead of Sandra Day O’Connor or if Lisa Nowak had been the first US woman in space rather than Sally Ride? How proud do Latinos feel about Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic Attorney General, having to resign in disgrace? To my mind the better “the First” is, the more likely there is to be a second.

Leadership?

There are appropriately extraordinary women in the US who would be outstanding leaders of this nation but to me, Senator Clinton just isn’t one of them. For one thing, she is not a true leader, she is simply a good politician. I say this because good politicians make you feel good about them and what they can do for you while leaders can make you feel good about yourself and what you can do for others. Such empowering inspiration is the hallmark of a leader. While I am sure there are those who find Senator Clinton empowering and inspirational, the majority of her backers seem to speak more to how much she can do for them rather than how she makes them feel they can do more for the country and the world.

The Bill Factor

How viable would the presidential candidacy of Hillary C. Linton be? If Senator Clinton were to win would we really be electing the first woman president or merely initiating the second Clinton co-presidency? For some reason, the gigantic shadow of her husband behind her seems to lend credence to the outdated stereotype that for a woman; how far you can go in life is determined by how well you marry.

Electability?

At this point no one can say for sure if the Clinton name would be more of an asset or a liability in the general election. But it is my belief that a greater percentage of the people who voted for Senator Clinton in the primary would be likely to vote for Senator Obama in the general election than the other way around. I say this because Senator Clinton’s voters tend to be party regulars who are likely to vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. By contrast, Senator Obama’s voters tend to be independents and new voters who are more likely to jump to the other side if McCain is waiting for them or simply not vote if they find the Republican candidate unsupportable. In addition, it is difficult to imagine Senator Clinton getting more than a tiny fraction of people who voted Republican in the primaries to vote for her in the general election. At the same time, if her name is on the ballot in the general election it will definitely serve to energize the Republican conservative base.

Effectiveness?

The baggage of the Clinton name is so heavy that without a 60-40 majority in the Senate, Hillary Care II (Universal Healthcare of All Americans), the Hillary Amnesty Bill (Immigration Reform), the Hillary Tax Increase (any Economic Stimulus package) and pretty much any significant legislation she would hope to pass while in office would be DOA. Conservatives will be lining up to oppose her legislative initiatives, not based on any perceived lack of merit but because she is President Clinton. Under President Hillary Clinton the partisan gridlock in Washington would reach epic proportions unless she started making the same compromises her husband had to make to get legislation passed through a hostile Congress.

Agent for Change?

Senator Clinton is proudly running as the ultimate Washington insider who claims she can make the system work for her. As such, President Hillary Clinton would only see a need to change the way things are done there if she cannot reach an accommodation with Republicans. Being true to her word (i.e., campaign rhetoric) would be her only intrinsic motive to change things for the sake of the voters. But since she is a politician, I’m not sure how binding that is.