Iâ€™m not the most qualified to write this post. Iâ€™m not a big Hillary Clinton fan. In fact, I renounced both Clintons for their tactics earlier in the campaign. But dang it all if Iâ€™m not starting to feel sympathy for the woman. She canâ€™t move a muscle without someone calling her a phony or a racist or , you know, pretty much evil. I think many of her opponents need to calm down and look at this from the human angle.
First, her tumultuous, whoâ€™s-at-the-wheel? campaign is very understandable. Have you ever been in line for a promotion and then, after everyone assures you youâ€™ll get the job, a younger and less experienced colleague gets the position instead? I donâ€™t care who you are, thatâ€™s hard to take. And for Clinton, itâ€™s happening in brutally slow motion.
Also consider this: in 2004 she opted not to run for president. She chose instead to let others have their shot, earned herself more experience and won a validating second term in the Senate. She played by â€œthe rules.â€ Barack Obama could have done the same, but he didnâ€™t. In effect, Clinton looks like a chump for thinking there were rules to play by. She waited four years just to get told sheâ€™s been around too long.
Then thereâ€™s the experience factor. She spent eight years privy to the daily operations of the executive branch. That should be a big plus. She knows things about running this nation that the rest of us can only guess at. Sure, she was â€œjust first ladyâ€ but, come on, she lived and breathed the daily pressures of managing this nation even if she wasnâ€™t personally in charge. She knows what sheâ€™s in for and, to top it off, she went out and acquired bonus legislative experience.
We can argue that Obama is just as or nearly as experienced as Clinton but, really, that requires us to believe Hillary Clinton was doing nothing more than planning dinner parties and hanging drapes for eight years. Does that remotely sound like the Clinton we know? No. She was certainly engaged and even if all she did was observe, thatâ€™s very valuable. Whatâ€™s the first thing surgeons do when learning to operate? They observe. Itâ€™s a key to success.
Finally, we keep hearing how the nation is done with the Bush/Clinton dynasties. Why? Because George II has mucked things up so much that we now think Hillary Clinton will screw things up too? Sure, the Clintons play by a similar set of divisive rules that the Bushâ€™s play by but, really, sheâ€™s being punished for the eight years of strife that has been George W. Bush while not at all being rewarded for the eight years of peace and prosperity (minus the distracting little sex scandal) that was Bill Clinton.
I know we expect our leaders to rise above the human elements. But Hillary Clinton has been caught in a vice grip of bad circumstances. We should not at all be surprised that her campaign has been less than smooth. Now, do I believe or support everything I wrote above? No, I wrote it from Clintonâ€™s point-of-view. Iâ€™m still of the opinion that the Clintons trade in a particularly nasty form of politics that sullies every good thing they accomplish. But I am weary of seeing the woman treated like a cancer. She could/would make an excellent candidate for the Democratic party.
Call me sentimental â€“ I voted for Bill twice, you know.