Below is a letter I just sent to the Mountain Mail in Salida, CO. With any luck it will appear in tomorrow’s paper. Here’s the link to their Letters section.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator Clinton’s campaign rests primarily on the argument that her experience makes her the better candidate. Yes, she seems well-versed in the ways of Washington, to the point that she can seem out of touch with what Americans are looking for in a candidate. For example, Senator Clinton repeatedly emphasizes that she is a “fighter.” This is precisely why I do not support her. Washington is chock-full of fighters, and the fighter ethic gets this country nowhere.
For all the experience talk, I think the most telling examples of the kind of president these candidates would make come from the experience of the last month or so. Obama, after weeks of mudslinging around statements made by his former pastor, rose above the negativity and accusations to give a speech that will go down in history as one of the great addresses in American history. In the midst of all the negativity, his “A More Perfect Union” address spoke to our country’s core values and higher purpose, and called on us to heal the racial tensions that still divide us.
Now Senator Clinton is under scrutiny. First for her untrue statements about her 1996 visit to Bosnia, and now for her campaign’s connections to a trade deal with Columbia which she has denounced. As in the past, when Clinton and her campaign have received negative press, she resorts to playing the victim, claiming that there is a “double standard” in the media despite the fact that she did all she could to fan the flames when Obama was on the ropes. This type of behavior under pressure says a lot about the kind of president she would make.
Of course Obama will have a hard time accomplishing all the change he has promised. But imagine a President Clinton coming up against congressional opposition to legislation she supports or dealing with a belligerent Iran. Her experience shows that she will dig her heals in, play the victim and start fighting, ensuring that the legislation will fail or worse, that Iran will be further isolated, worsening America’s polarization with that regime. Now imagine a President Obama in the same position. The experience of the last months shows that under heat, he will rise above the bickering and identify the true issues which America must confront. In so doing he will empathize with and bring together opposing sides. Rather than playing the “fighter,” he will, as he has promised, engage Iran. And his unifying verbal skills will undoubtedly help to ease tensions in such crucial cases of foreign diplomacy.
I have had enough of the “fighter” ethic in Washington. In contrast to Clinton’s, Obama’s experience shows that his ability to unify is strongest under pressure. If this doesn’t represent true change in Washington, I don’t know what does.
