Clinton's Win Would be Unconstitutional

I hope i can write this out, then stop thinking about it for awhile. . . Sometimes my brain works that way. Right now, I find myself thinking too much about politics. I've decided that they want me to think about them this much and being a playwright its too hard to resist. All these candidates for president say, "I am what you want me to be. I am your aspirations. I am your character. On a very large, worldwide, stage. How would you like me to move?" And I spend way too much time thinking of the blocking and the good speeches they could say.

It's clearly unhealthy.

So. Here's my confession. I was torn. I was really torn. Edwards came out with specific, progressive domestic programs that I appreciate. I appreciated even more that he was being specific and aggressive with programs. Clinton is Clinton. The Clinton years were good -- much fucking better than the Bush years on either side. You've got to give her some credit. Also, I feel bad that so many people hate her. What the hell did she do? And Obama -- well, I'd hear a lot of great things about Obama in Illinois way before he was running for Senate or before he gave that speech at the Democratic Convention. Making a long story short, people with no real hidden agenda told me he was the guy to go to if you wanted to have a serious discussion with a serious man who could seriously get things done about issues like education, etc. The real stuff. The real deal. A guy who had been working his whole life in exactly this way - doing way he could, being as honest as he could, as smart as he could. The real deal.

Of course, I was leaning toward Obama. That's some serious references -- and remember this was said to me before he was running for senate. . . but I was holding back largely because I don't understand this search for "the real deal" that everyone is so obsessed about. I want politicians to do their job better so that I don't have to think about their job except occasionally while I go about my own business. Like dentist. Sure, I'll carefully chose the right dentist, but after that, I don't want to think about it very much. Like I said, Edwards was putting out policy proposals. Substance. And Clinton had eight years of "better than now" to run on. Real concrete evidence. I like to think I can be swayed most by evidence and substance rather references.

But now I've got to support Obama. While I will say that any of the three will be better than any of the GOP right now, I don't think Edwards would be a successful president, and Clinton is really starting to make me ill. I don't mind the dirty politics stuff. It's a tough world. Whatever. It's the fact that the stupid nature of her attacks and defense make me wonder whether some of the substance of the GOP attacks in the 90s wasn't correct. . . I hate her for making me wonder that. Bill Clinton can't seem to keep the facts straight to save his life. he says he always opposed the Iraq war? What? he says that the Obama campaign has been smearing him like mad with "80" different campaign pieces. Does anyone know what the hell he's talking about? And Hillary says whatever, mischaracterizes whatever. . . It's all so, whatever. Politics is politics. I woudn't mind it so much if it didn't confirm the worst of what was said about the Clintons during the presidency. Argh! I hate them for making me wonder whether the GOP had a point. Because at the time there was all this mud slinging and I blamed the GOP alone. Now there is all this mudslinging and the only common denominator is the Clintons. Is that a tactic? Keep throwing the mud until everyone is dirty and no one can remember or know who threw the first pile? Argh!?

I like Obama's style. (Why does Edwards imply that negotiation with powerful interests is bad? What else were you going to do -- hit them with a baseball bat? I don't think that's a power of the presidency. Aren't we supposed to remember that negotiation isn't a sign of weakness. You can negotiate with anyone, from strength. In fact, if you intend to avoid war (don't the Democrats intend to avoid war?) you have to negotiate with your enemies. You have to. It's actually not just a question of philosophy but a requirement. Negotiation doesn't mean like or agree or cave. It simply means talk about differences instead of kill about differences. You shouldn't get to decide that certain differences are outside the pale of what you'll talk about. Down that road, again, leads war. Real war.)

He's obviously smart, liberal, compassionate. What else can we ask for? I don't expect miracles from the man but he appears to the best we'll get in a long time.

And finally, I don't buy Clinton's argument about experience. Even if she wasn't repulsing me right now. She's 13 years older than Obama, so she's had longer to build up her resume certainly but still -- He left college and worked with real people on the south side of chicago. She left college and went to law school. She joined a high-powered law firm. He went to harvard law, became the first african-american editor of the review, then became a constitutional law teacher and civil rights lawyer. She was first lady of arkansas. Then she was first lady of the u.s. He became a state senator. She became a senator. He become a senator. Where in there does she check off all the required experience for a president and where does he miss it? They both have done stuff. They both have had experience that can easily be seen as preparatory for other jobs in government.

I don't believe that anyone can understand what its like to be president until you are president. Even if you're the wife of the president. So, do I think either of them can handle the office -- I'm as sure as I can be. They're both smart, experienced, curious. Whatever.

However, if I were to accept Hillary's argument that electing her would be a continuation of the earlier Clinton years -- then I have to think that electing her would be unconstitutional. If they weren't able to make lasting change in the eight years that they got, then the constitution says its time to give someone else a try. . . So, I'm saying, even if I were to buy the co-presidency idea, I think I'd prefer to counterargue that, in this country, you're not supposed to get another four or eight years to try harder. Reagan would have been reelected, but he wasn't allowed. Bill Clinton would have been reelected but he wasn't allowed. If the argument is, in part, to bring back the Clinton years, then I'd say -- trivial but economically happy though they were -- it's time to move on. The constitution would actually like us to.

Yup. This rant isn't going to stop me from obsessing over it. O well.

Nice try though.