Hillary Clinton said during last night's debate that New Hampshire's voters never had quite as big a decision to make about the future of this country than they do on the 8th. She said that not because the national security of America hinged on it, not because our economy depended on it, not because our longevity depended on it-- but because it's their chance to ask themselves having learned the lessons of George W. Bush whether it was time to value accomplishments over charisma.
I read somewhere once that part of the reason the English loved the show "The West Wing" was because of their fascination with American politics: specifically the tremendous amount of faith we put behind our candidates in their views of the world and their morality, verging on religiosity. This faith that gets heaped on time and again in elections is very pretty and it makes stories for the newspapers: but is that enough to elect a President?
Is it enough to rely on faith that someone's intuition will prevail over the problems we know we already have? Is it enough to rely on faith that someone's experience, or lack thereof, is relevant to hunkering down and getting the policy work done that we desperately need? Is faith enough to ensure that the next president will not have wasted time learning the ropes and the hard Washington lessons the come with serving?
I don't think it is. I don't have that faith, because the Washington outsider always learns the same lesson-- I just want results. Faith isn't enough today, because words are not action. The best way to secure results is to elect someone who knows how to get them in Washington.
Chris Dodd and Joe Biden had a reason why they believed their campaigns would take hold (although Biden had a long history of working against the interests of progressives). They have gotten results, even under hostile administrations. But Democrats largely either didn't know or didn't care. Dodd implored in one debate: "This isn't about celebrity, this is about picking the best president," an argument that the Clinton campaign has been eager to take on. She too has gotten results, in Washington, under a hostile administration and she happens to be well known.
When I look at saving some money and investing it in a mutual fund, I read the prospectus. The words are lovely, but the results are what matter. And so, it's nice that words can possibly do a number of things. But that's not enough.
It'd be revolutionary to elect a president who isn't just a salesman. It'd be revolutionary to elect a president who has overcome a hostile press and earned the begrudged respect of numerous Republicans in the Congress and millions across rural America. It'd be revolutionary to elect a president who actually knows the mechanics of day, week, month, and year one in the White House and knows what to expect.
Change would be nice. Electing someone who isn't a Dark Horse candidate and who actually has something to show for her experience is a change. Electing someone who has suffered from no lack of criticism about her record even as it bears repeating that her record overshadows most of her rivals, barring Richardson, is a change. And of course, electing a woman president is a change.
But this election should be about results. Who will make them happen in Washington? I don't have to rely on faith to back Hillary Clinton's candidacy for change. She has a record of results to prove it.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 33 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
