This is in response to the comments found here.
It is not important that a Democratic candidate wins the 2008 presidential election. In fact, because of problems with Iraq, especially in terms of leaving Iraq, a candidate that runs on leaving Iraq may not accomplish his/her goal. Since there is construction of military bases and embassies, it may be unlikely that the US Military will leave any time soon. Senator McCain may be correct on this.
Yet, despite Iraq, here are three reasons why the correct candidate matters.
First, listen to this recent Hillary Clinton Ad against Barack Obama:
Reason One: This ad is intellectually dishonest. The intent behind Barack's comments is that he believed that the Reagan Presidency was transformative because Reagan reached out to Democrats to gain their support for policy, which is something the Democrats now should do. Unfortunately, the former Clinton administration could not do this because of ideological opposition between the parties. More importantly, if the Clinton camp is resorting to these tactics during the Primary, what reason is she giving the country that these acts of intellectual dishonesty would change during a general election or during her administration. And remember, intellectual dishonesty is one of the most important criticisms of the Bush Administration.
Reason Two: This ad perpetuates the ideological divisions in the country, which undermined the Clinton administration. Republicans gained control of Congress and forced President Clinton's hand on many issues, making him useless on many grounds. This will continue under a Hillary Clinton administration because of the ideological opposition to her. It is a fact that many would not vote for her or support her policies.
Reason Three: If the Clinton administration won the general election, which I am not sure she can do, and unless the Democrats win a super-majority in the House and Senate, which is unlikely, then the Clinton administration would not be able to accomplish major goals. Opponents to her ideology would have no reason to support her and every reason to object to her. Consequently, her opposition would persuade their base and independents that her presidency has not met her goals and should be voted out.
2 comments:
Wait. Harrogate is now confused. As Obama himself might say, "let's be clear."
You write,
"Republicans gained control of Congress and forced President Clinton's hand on many issues, making him useless on many grounds. This will continue under a Hillary Clinton administration
because of the ideological opposition to her.
It is a fact that many would not vote for her or support her policies."
You make a point throughout your post of emphasizing Ideological tensions between the Clintons and the GOP. One might be led to believe you are saying there is less distance, in terms of Political Ideology, between Obama and the GOP.
Is that what you are saying?
I secondg Harrogate's request for further clarification. Can't the point 2 essentially be made about any Democratic president if there is a Republican majority in Congress? I do concede that there isn't the same ideological fear of Obama among the general public that there is for Clinton, but I also think we've seen in the past 15 years or so that partisan politics are being played in Washington, D.C. This point is only valid if there is a Democratic president and a Republican Congress--or vice versa. I think it is equally a fact than many would not vote for Obama or support his policies if he were elected President and there was a Republican majority in Congress.
Post a Comment