In less than a year, it will be time to go out and pick a brand new president for our country. Actually, the next president might not be so brand-new after all. If Hillary Clinton manages to hold on to her current popularity, she could well be the second Clinton to occupy the big desk in the west wing since 1990. And some people are saying that’s a bad thing. For the past 20 years, we’ve only had two names in the White House: Bush and Clinton. They argue that it’s time for some new blood. Well, that’s an argument that makes a lot of sense if you don’t think about it too much.
What that argument is really saying is that the second Bush was a lot worse than the first, so the second Clinton would likewise be expected to be worse than the first. But I think it would be the other way around. Bill Clinton was really just a hillbilly version of Ronald Reagan. Both of them were very good actors and very lucky presidents. They presided over sunny times; during Reagan’s watch, America’s arch-enemy, the Soviet Union, finally collapsed of its own weight; in Bill Clinton’s time, burgeoning information technologies and deregulation brought forth the fastest economic growth and most promising outlook since the 1920’s. Despite a couple of minor military operations, both presidents presided over relatively peaceful times. So no wonder people look back on both with nostalgia, even though both had a lot more pearly teeth than integrity or virtue. These guys were not exactly Abraham Lincolns.
By contrast, Hilary seems to trade charisma for substance. The question is, does she have the right substance for the unsettled days and years ahead, days when many evil chickens will come home to roost. The next president will face times just as bad as what Jimmy Carter faced (recall the energy crisis, inflation, recession and the Iranian hostage crisis). Carter had a lot of substance, but his lack of leadership doomed his presidency. At the other extreme, our most recent President Bush found out that all charisma and no substance eventually corrodes the public trust that propels one into the White House.
Can Hilary strike the balance that FDR and JFK maintained (and made it look so easy)? I think she could — so long as she listens to Bill first, her own mind second, and then her heart last. I know that she’s not without fault – she certainly didn’t do very well in choosing a husband. But hey, she appears to be trying to make lemonade out of it, and I give her credit for that. Thus, I am personally ready for 8 more years of the Bush-Clinton era. They started out fairly well (George Herbert Walker Bush might well qualify for “under-rated” status; he did a pretty good job with his own Iraq crisis), but they went down from there (although the prosperity of the Clinton years made Bill seem the better man). However, I think they could end on an up-note. I’m willing to take a chance on Hillary, especially since the best alternatives seem too young (Obama) or can’t gain traction within their own party (McCain).
Jim,
Much to muse on in your blog. I’ve steadfastly stayed away from discussing with almost everybody anything at all to do with the candidates. But now that you’ve brought it up……
When it comes right down to it, I’m still undecided about whether I’ll vote for Obama or Clinton. But I’m leaning toward Clinton.
I think that thirty or even twenty years ago I’d have picked Obama in a heartbeat. However, I’ve seen too many situations where I voted for a candidate that I was SURE would bring some change. Only to actually have the candidate win. Then it turned out that the change the person made serious attempts to institute was thwarted by those in power who had much more savvy in how the institution actually worked.
I live in Illinois; I know what the state legislature is like in Illinois, and I remember when Obama was a state senator. He did not stand out in any spectacular way; actually, I can’t say he’s stood out in any spectacular way as a senator either–except that he’s decided to run for president. In fact, soon after he started to run for president, there were rumors in Illinois of hanky panky deals that involved Obama. (These kinds of deals are the everyday stuff in Illinois.) But nothing really came of the rumors. However, I begin to wonder if the only reason nothing came of them was because he was not actually a state senator long enough to garner influence and cash in as so many Illinois legislators do. (Of course, they would all deny this; and I have no solid “proof”; but in Illinois everyone knows how things work.) I do know that as regards change, he was conspicuous by what he did NOT do.
Also, in my own hey day I was sure I would be an instrument for change in the institutions with which I was associated. However, regretfully, it turned out that “you can’t beat the system.”
Now I see Clinton as a different “entity” in regard to her and the system. She is very savvy in regard to how the system works, should have some knowledge of how to manipulate and use it to achieve her ends–that is, if she is not stonewalled because she is a woman. She didn’t achieve much with the health bill, etc., when Bill was president; but then she had no power to actually implement what SHE wanted to do.
I always liked Carter as a person; I thought he was a really good man. However, a “really good man” makes a lousy president; it’s a shame to say it, but it seems true. And you are right, he inherited the mess Reagan left. And the inheritance of the current mess we have by the next president may be the BIGGEST problem, of so many, the next president has.
Now if Hillary has the actual power, she may be able to do the things she says she wants to do. And strangely enough, it’s actually the fact that she has a background that is not exactly “pristine” that makes me think she would do well as a president. I think a good president has to have a good idea of what he/she wants to do and a good idea of how to get that within the system that is already in place. I think she’s got both.
Also, I have to disagree with you that she “didn’t do well” in choosing her husband. I think she did exactly what she wanted to do. I think she’s a person who is interested in power, saw she could get that power connected to Bill. I have heard more than once that years ago BILL wanted to divorce HER. Not the other way around. He was already catting around on her years ago. Why did she insist she would not divorce him? Because he’s so wonderful to be around and couldn’t live without him? After a few years of marriage, we both know that attitude flies right out the door; and one stays with a person for reasons other than “I can’t live without you.” I think she stayed with him because she saw him as her ticket to the ultimate power she wanted. When they were young and first married, the concept of a woman president would not even have been considered. But she had a goal of power in her sights–as much as she could get; “attached” to Bill, she co
Comment by Anonymous — December 15, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Jim,
Much to muse on in your blog. I’ve steadfastly stayed away from discussing with almost everybody anything at all to do with the candidates. But now that you’ve brought it up……
When it comes right down to it, I’m still undecided about whether I’ll vote for Obama or Clinton. But I’m leaning toward Clinton.
I think that thirty or even twenty years ago I’d have picked Obama in a heartbeat. However, I’ve seen too many situations where I voted for a candidate that I was SURE would bring some change. Only to actually have the candidate win. Then it turned out that the change the person made serious attempts to institute was thwarted by those in power who had much more savvy in how the institution actually worked.
I live in Illinois; I know what the state legislature is like in Illinois, and I remember when Obama was a state senator. He did not stand out in any spectacular way; actually, I can’t say he’s stood out in any spectacular way as a senator either–except that he’s decided to run for president. In fact, soon after he started to run for president, there were rumors in Illinois of hanky panky deals that involved Obama. (These kinds of deals are the everyday stuff in Illinois.) But nothing really came of the rumors. However, I begin to wonder if the only reason nothing came of them was because he was not actually a state senator long enough to garner influence and cash in as so many Illinois legislators do. (Of course, they would all deny this; and I have no solid “proof”; but in Illinois everyone knows how things work.) I do know that as regards change, he was conspicuous by what he did NOT do.
Also, in my own hey day I was sure I would be an instrument for change in the institutions with which I was associated. However, regretfully, it turned out that “you can’t beat the system.”
Now I see Clinton as a different “entity” in regard to her and the system. She is very savvy in regard to how the system works, should have some knowledge of how to manipulate and use it to achieve her ends–that is, if she is not stonewalled because she is a woman. She didn’t achieve much with the health bill, etc., when Bill was president; but then she had no power to actually implement what SHE wanted to do.
I always liked Carter as a person; I thought he was a really good man. However, a “really good man” makes a lousy president; it’s a shame to say it, but it seems true. And you are right, he inherited the mess Reagan left. And the inheritance of the current mess we have by the next president may be the BIGGEST problem, of so many, the next president has.
Now if Hillary has the actual power, she may be able to do the things she says she wants to do. And strangely enough, it’s actually the fact that she has a background that is not exactly “pristine” that makes me think she would do well as a president. I think a good president has to have a good idea of what he/she wants to do and a good idea of how to get that within the system that is already in place. I think she’s got both.
Also, I have to disagree with you that she “didn’t do well” in choosing her husband. I think she did exactly what she wanted to do. I think she’s a person who is interested in power, saw she could get that power connected to Bill. I have heard more than once that years ago BILL wanted to divorce HER. Not the other way around. He was already catting around on her years ago. Why did she insist she would not divorce him? Because he’s so wonderful to be around and couldn’t live without him? After a few years of marriage, we both know that attitude flies right out the door; and one stays with a person for reasons other than “I can’t live without you.” I think she stayed with him because she saw him as her ticket to the ultimate power she wanted. When they were young and first married, the concept of a woman president would not even have been considered. But she had a goal of power in her sights–as much as she could get; “attached” to Bill, she could find a way to achieve that. I think she was very deliberate in staying with Bill.
I don’t think people really give thought to the fact that a woman may have a similar goal as a lot of men have–power.
I also think that some women bring a kind of “softening” quality to an office–without losing any of the actual achievement of what needa to be accomplished. Look what women did for Ireland; they managed to stop all the fighting there. They may still be yelling at each other, but the blowing people up has stopped in Ireland.
(Which leads me to digress: I think that the Middle East could use a good dose of women’s influence. The “protecting” of women that goes on over there that is just a way of keeping women subjected goes a long way to accounting for so much of the turmoil over there–of course, outside of our stupidity in invading Iraq. And even the women, who I’ve heard, encourage their young men to be suicide bombers may be doing that as an unconscious way of both getting out some of their own rage at their constant submissive position and a way of “punishing” their men for keeping them submissive. How can women in the Middle East get some power? By “attaching” themselves to those fighting the jihad. As I say, it’s deep in the unconscious; but I think my idea is at least something to consider. But as I say, I digress.)
So, ultimately I think that as much as I’d really LIKE to vote for Obama, I’m going to end up voting for Hillary–unless something drastic comes along to change my mind.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — December 15, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Jim,
Much to muse on in your blog. I’ve steadfastly stayed away from discussing with almost everybody anything at all to do with the candidates. But now that you’ve brought it up……
When it comes right down to it, I’m still undecided about whether I’ll vote for Obama or Clinton. But I’m leaning toward Clinton.
I think that thirty or even twenty years ago I’d have picked Obama in a heartbeat. However, I’ve seen too many situations where I voted for a candidate that I was SURE would bring some change. Only to actually have the candidate win. Then it turned out that the change the person made serious attempts to institute was thwarted by those in power who had much more savvy in how the institution actually worked.
I live in Illinois; I know what the state legislature is like in Illinois, and I remember when Obama was a state senator. He did not stand out in any spectacular way; actually, I can’t say he’s stood out in any spectacular way as a senator either–except that he’s decided to run for president. In fact, soon after he started to run for president, there were rumors in Illinois of hanky panky deals that involved Obama. (These kinds of deals are the everyday stuff in Illinois.) But nothing really came of the rumors. However, I begin to wonder if the only reason nothing came of them was because he was not actually a state senator long enough to garner influence and cash in as so many Illinois legislators do. (Of course, they would all deny this; and I have no solid “proof”; but in Illinois everyone knows how things work.) I do know that as regards change, he was conspicuous by what he did NOT do.
Also, in my own hey day I was sure I would be an instrument for change in the institutions with which I was associated. However, regretfully, it turned out that “you can’t beat the system.”
Now I see Clinton as a different “entity” in regard to her and the system. She is very savvy in regard to how the system works, should have some knowledge of how to manipulate and use it to achieve her ends–that is, if she is not stonewalled because she is a woman. She didn’t achieve much with the health bill, etc., when Bill was president; but then she had no power to actually implement what SHE wanted to do.
I always liked Carter as a person; I thought he was a really good man. However, a “really good man” makes a lousy president; it’s a shame to say it, but it seems true. And you are right, he inherited the mess Reagan left. And the inheritance of the current mess we have by the next president may be the BIGGEST problem, of so many, the next president has.
Now if Hillary has the actual power, she may be able to do the things she says she wants to do. And strangely enough, it’s actually the fact that she has a background that is not exactly “pristine” that makes me think she would do well as a president. I think a good president has to have a good idea of what he/she wants to do and a good idea of how to get that within the system that is already in place. I think she’s got both.
Also, I have to disagree with you that she “didn’t do well” in choosing her husband. I think she did exactly what she wanted to do. I think she’s a person who is interested in power, saw she could get that power connected to Bill. I have heard more than once that years ago BILL wanted to divorce HER. Not the other way around. He was already catting around on her years ago. Why did she insist she would not divorce him? Because he’s so wonderful to be around and couldn’t live without him? After a few years of marriage, we both know that attitude flies right out the door; and one stays with a person for reasons other than “I can’t live without you.” I think she stayed with him because she saw him as her ticket to the ultimate power she wanted. When they were young and first married, the concept of a woman president would not even have been considered. But she had a goal of power in her sights–as much as she could get; “attached” to Bill, she co
Comment by Anonymous — December 15, 2007 @ 3:52 pm