One of the best arguments for voting for Hillary I have read.
Henri Barkey and Tara Sonenshine are right in observing in this space ("Global View of Democrats") that the next US president will have the critical task of raising America's credibility around the world from the depths to which it has sunk.
The authors argue that Senator Obama is the best candidate to restore America's standing and authority based on his "transformative personality, personal history and appeal."
Here's why they are wrong.
While personal appeal and oratorical skill are certainly helpful in building diplomatic ties and conveying goodwill, they aren't a substitute for strong relationships and demonstrated leadership on the international stage. And as valuable as Senator Obama's Kenyan roots and childhood in Indonesia are, these experiences are not, in fact, indicators of diplomatic skill or the knowledge of global affairs needed to navigate international relations in our treacherous world.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton has been practicing public diplomacy for years and is widely respected around the world for her longtime commitment to international development, human rights and America's global leadership.
During the years that Hillary Clinton served as first lady, she became a symbol of America's human face and the values we cherish as a people. In an unprecedented role, she traveled to more than eighty countries to highlight the importance of investing in people. She gave voice to those living on the margins of society, particularly women and children, but also the poor. She put a spotlight on US development programs that offered solutions to pressing problems like infectious diseases, illiteracy, and economic marginalization. She advanced important causes -- from microcredit to global health initiatives -- with an array of foreign leaders, international organizations, and grass roots activists. And she also talked to Americans about why these investments were critical to expanding our influence and enhancing our own security.
Hillary Clinton traveled to places no first lady had ever gone, and where presidents can't go. Visits to some of the most troubled places around the world certainly offered her a measure of exposure and acculturation that she would carry with her to the presidency.
While her oratory may not be as soaring as Senator Obama's, her words helped galvanize a global women's rights movement. Her now famous speech in Beijing at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 -- which declared that "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights" -- became a call to action to millions of women who joined together in a common purpose - the struggle for women's rights and human rights on a global scale.
Given her status as one of the world's most visible champions of these causes, it's not surprising that thousands waited through the night to hear her speak in the Philippines; that men and women stood ten deep along the streets in Mongolia to salute her when she traveled there; that the residents of Soweto danced in the streets awaiting her visit to their township.
Indeed, Hillary is today a familiar and beloved presence in many parts of the world. A street in a housing project where she helped squatters in South Africa was named after her. So was a clinic in Eritrea, a village in Bangladesh, and a school in Romania. When she arrived in Nicaragua after a devastating hurricane had hit, women held up a banner in Spanish that said: "Welcome to Hillary, the ambassador to the poor."
Perhaps as relevant today is her stature in the Muslim world. Having traveled extensively in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia, she conducted vigorous outreach to diverse religious groups and convened leaders of different faiths to work together on religious tolerance and ways to combat extremism.
In 1999, a plaque was dedicated at the US Agency for International Development to recognize Hillary's leadership on global issues.
It said, "May all who pass through these portals recognize the invaluable contributions to worldwide development made by the First Lady of the US, Hillary Clinton." The Bush Administration had the plaque removed. Plaque or not, her legacy around the world endures in the hearts and minds of millions of people for whom she was an embodiment of America at its very best. That is what Hillary Clinton would bring to the presidency
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 47
If the Democrats don't get smart, we will all get President McCain.
She stayed with Bill (and moved to NY) for one purpose: to run for prez.
Do not underestimate the power of this symbol.
My biggest concern with Hillary has always been poor judgment, though. She voted for a war that should have never been authorized, and never been waged; every day we are suffering the consequences. Did you know I was once a diehard Hillary supporter, BEFORE she did that?
However, this is a good article. Thank you.
The world is ready to call America a monarchy! I've read many many article from the foreign press talking about Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. This, my fellow Americans, has never been seen in any western civilized democracy. Electing a Clinton will send a clear signal that the American system is rigged and designed for only some people.
The other thing you can hear every night on BBC and can read on Times UK online, is how undemocratic the person who most likely will win more states, more votes, has even the slightest chance of not being the nominee.
Hillary is not the strongest candidate. Traditional democrats want her by far. The mere fact that Obama voters will vote John McCain (rightly so if the elections are stolen from them) makes her the weakest candidate.
On one side she tells us Obama is not ready to president, on the other side she and her husband tell us that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable.
Mrs Clinton, would you really pick up a VP who is not presidential? What hands would you leave America in should something happen to you?
Oh! you don't care so long you were president for 1 day.
you discount the vote of the young people but your candidate had no problem sending to die for their country.
Too stupid to make the right decision in an election. But smart enough to decide when to shoot and kill. Smart enough to distinguish friends from foe.
As a war veteran and a so-called young voter, I feel insulted by your comments!
OBAMA HAS WON MORE BLUE STATES
Obama has won more Blue states so far with 11 (Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Hawaii) to Hillary's 6 Blue states (California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire).
The big states have been appropriated larger delegates. If you win them you get more delegates. So you cannot come back and say "I won them, I got more delegates there, and you should nominate me as a result". That's being prized twice. If you win them you should be ahead. Why are you behind?
Dennis Kucinich can win those big blue states. CA and NY will NEVER VOTE GOP. It's a DUMB argument.
You people really believe ANYTHING THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN SAYS without checking the facts by yourself.
Conversely, you can find well written articles about the downsides of political dynasties, the fight in 90s, Obama's lack of experience and such. Just because somebody printed it does not make it true.
The big state argument is ridiculous. Of course he will win CA NY and the likes. Now Ohio will be challenging for Mr Obama. At the same time he will pick up red states. The Clinton team and supporters need to stop discounting and insulting the democrats and independents from red states. We have the opportunity to COLOR many many states after George W's performance. STOP TELLING THEM THAT WE DON'T WANT THEIR VOTES!
Yes, Hillary would bring a certain degree of familiarity to the rest of the world. Like the US, the world likes to be comfortable. They think that recognition equates with knowing. Actually, recognition equates with celebrity, but that's not my point here. The point is that the world and much of the US right now wants to feel comfortable. Yet at the same time we say we want change. But I've come to learn that Hillary represents more of the same. The same political manipulation. The same divisiveness. The same Washington-speak. To see what she did prior to the South Carolina primary was shameful. To see what she did prior to the Texas/Ohio primaries was shameful. The fact that so many people fell for her manipulation is shameful.
I will vote my conscience. I will vote for the person that I believe will work for me, not for herself. Though their methods and beliefs may differ, I am confident that both Obama and McCain have the integrity to do what they think is best for the country. Hillary has shown a willingness to obfuscate and to twist the truth - with the full knowledge that she is doing so and well beyond the usual political sleight of hand that all politicians use. She does it with meanness. It has become clear that Obama and McCain want what is best for the country...It is equally clear that Hillary is interested in winning, in fulfilling what she believes is her "destiny," in showing the world how great she is. I want someone who can show the world how great America is. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee I will either vote for McCain or write-in Obama.
I must live with my vote. I cannot vote for someone who leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. And apparently the majority of Independents like myself agree. A recent poll showed that Independents would overwhelmingly vote for McCain if Hillary were the Democratic nominee. These same Independents would vote for Obama if he were the nominee. This is very telling.
Consider also the fact that all of us tend to use the name "Hillary" when referring to the candidate to avoid confusion with "Bill" Clinton. This in itself is also very telling. We cannot seem to distinguish between the candidate, who has much to offer on her own, from the former President. We must keep in mind that we are not reelecting Bill Clinton, we are considering taking a chance on electing a former first lady as our next President. Do we really want to elect someone for the most influential office in the world based on the fact that they were married to a former President? Was it a good idea to elect George W. Bush based on the fact that his father was a former President? Are we willing to make that same mistake again?
What I've been saying is that if Obama there is a higher number of Obama voters who will vote for McCain if they feel cheated. The question pollster have yet to ask us is "would you vote McCain if you 'feel' Obama was cheated". I have the feeling (I am not saying certitude) that this number is far greater than the stats you quoted last time.
Either candidate will not win the other's group. Who would that hurt more? I am not sure. It really depends on what happens in the next few months. How fair each camp thinks the process is. That is why in my opinion, the DNC should step up and make sure that MI FL mess is resolved. If not, John McCain becomes president.
And yes demographics, not only where they live, but income, level of education matters. Again, these are your friends/family therefore similarities are expected :). But still Obama need all of them to win in November and right now he is struggling with some group.
However this guy has been making progress ever since he announced his run. This is not a candidate slowing down but gaining ground by the day.
Hillary Clinton tells voters of the state she did not win that they don't matter. Don't you want the exact quotes?
It is remarkable how the Right wing conspiracy has tried to vilify her for 16 years. Think, is this not a virtue, she loved her husband and did not leave him. I know of 3 couples that went through an unfaithful partner and two of those couples are still together happy as ever, is that WRONG!?
There are many who have given in to repub LIES.
She killed 46 people.
They Looted Air Force One and thrashed the WhiteHouse.
She is a Lesbian.
The list goes on.
I love seeing the Repubs fretting over a HIll Win.
Besides, all these girls and women (and men) have to do to find inspiration is to look at the vast number of other countries in the world that have elected women to be their leader. Including many in which you wouldn't think women's rights are very well developed. It takes the right woman, just as it takes the right man, to be President. Hillary's experience, unfortunately, is based purely on riding the coattails of her husband. This means she had a chance to meet more world leaders than others might have, but then most of those world leaders are long gone and the new ones are looking for new leadership in America, not the same old same old.
She claims to be the experienced candidate. If you want someone who has Washington experience, vote McCain. He's been there for 25 years.
In Florida she won big, but REMEMBER EDWARDS WAS ON THE BALLOT. Ever since Edwards dropped out, Barack has been looking good. It all depends on the margins, whichever pundit says otherwise was wrong!
Oh yeah. Realclearpolitics.com has a chart showing her total population votes with MI and FL included (the Jan 29 results, which she wants to keep). She is leading by less than 20,000 votes (with MI and FL results)!!!!
So after Mississippi, with MI and FL included, she will be behind.
Pennsylvania < Indiana + North Carolina. So even if she won by the same margin again (55-45% in Michigan and by 15% in Fl), that would not happen. What idiot in those 2 networks made that erroneous analysis?
Blacks are minorities in about every state (15% in MI, not that's not a big minority). In the democratic party they are less of a minority. A mail-in ballot should help Barack because it's always been hard to turn out African Americans. Barack will struggle in rural areas but remember the big cities population is just huge!
Obama is not where he is because of the black vote. I'm not black, I supported him before black leaders and the black voters rallied behind him. Nobody can get a shot at a nomination with black voters only. Like you said, they are a minority.
Highly educated democrats are the driving force of the O movement.
We in Michigan are like Ohio,strong labor and union,large loss of jobs.We have a few black areas,Detroit,Flint,Saginaw,but blacks are still a big minority.Most people I know,friends family ,husbands coworkers(GM factory) are all Hillary fans.If we end up with a mail in revote,more people will vote than did ,many more seniors,and I think Hillary will end up with more votes than she did.
I'm no spring chicken, and if the Clintonistas do their dirty work and unfairly achieve the nomination, I'll sit this one out entirely, and let you all reap the next four years of McCaine you so desperately are attempting to achieve, yes.
I still believe that if Obama gets ONE MORE PLEDGE DELEGATES he wins. Who in the democratic party will stand up and tell us "ok Obama won more states, more pledge delegates, but we will take it away from him. Hillary is more electable" More electable, we will prove you wrong but voting against her, number 1. Then we will vote you out in all your districts. That's how we will respond. I won't sit it out, I will not just donate for McCain, I will get out the vote, canvass for McCain
Why they are doing this Patty? This is their last chance. They are doomed anyways. So why not have one more try? If it works out, they can begin to make an argument. Right now, they got nothing. So they will try thing and if they win both 20, they start spinning. That's why. If you are on a fifth floor building in fire with no chance of rescue, you jump!
Of course, I will ask for you when canvassing for McCain!!!!!
What will be "stolen" if Hillary ends up with a lot of votes from FL,Mi and Pennsylvania? Because Obama is black we are supposed to let him win?Because people are fired up we are supposed to let him win?If she ends up with the popular vote the supers should ignore the voice of the people?Thats for the electoral college to do.The superdelegates are supposed to vote for who is best for the job,and yes more likely to win.
It would be a disservice to american citizens in Michigan and Florida if we are not allowed a voice in the democratic process of electing our president.The DNC made a rule(it is not a law) to punish the people in charge.We the voters should not be punished.
A mail ballot is inherently unfair because it allows everyone to vote. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but primaries and caucuses require people to actually get out to the polling place (though there are some absentee ballots). Thus, anyone who gets a ballot can contribute a vote, even if they have no clue and no intention to vote. It would be too easy for supporters of one candidate or another to go door to door offering to "help" fill out their mail in ballot. This is why voters are required to go to the polls or to request absentee ballots (and affirm that they will be out of the area on election day).
If a fair (or at least reasonably fair) way of re-voting can be determined than it seems right to do. I just don't see how it can be done fairly enough though at this point.
Plus, as I've suggested before, it is highly likely given the proportional delegate assignment that all this trouble will not change a hoot regarding the delegate spread between the candidates.
Says something about the integrity of the candidate, don't you think? If you can't win with leadership and inspiration, win by gaming the system.
The same goes for Florida even though all candidates were on the ballot. Besides the fact that many people may have stayed home knowing that their votes would not count, a redo between just Hillary and Obama would totally disenfranchise those who voted for John Edwards and the others in the race at the time. In addition, time has passed, which based on the trends seen in primaries since January, would suggest that Obama would gain a greater percentage of Florida delegates than he did previously. This would make the redo for both states even more unfair to Hillary, and more meaningless, than the January results.
In reality, since the delegate assignments (either based on the January vote or some re-vote) will not likely change the relative delegate counts dramatically between Hillary and Obama, the question becomes why is the Hillary campaign so eager to "have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated"? The answer, because like Texas and Ohio she can count them as "wins" and attempt to game the system to get superdelegates to vote for her. Consider that she received only 9 additional delegates than Obama in Ohio for her win. In Texas she actually will end up with less delegates than Obama once the caucus counts are completed (so much for the "win"). Michigan and Florida, assuming similar results to those seen earlier, will get her perhaps a few delegates. Ah, but that is secondary to the "wins." Always the "win." Like somehow winning a smaller number of big states, most of whom will vote Democratic in the national election anyway, is worth more than winning a greater number of states and a greater number of delegates. Hubris at its best, gamesmanship at its worst.
Don't tell that to Hillary supporters. They really think the results will hold. I keep telling them that "Jesse Jackson won MI". Delegate wise new voting won't help her: See John Edwards' explanation in above post.
Regarding states won. Obama won more blue states, granted they are small one, nonetheless a bunch of small of ones. He won more purple states, he won more states period. He won more delegates. After tonight, he will have won more popular votes including MI and FL. My guess is team Obama will wait until the math gives them more popular votes including the current results of MI, FL, and Penn, and mount the pressure. That can only happen after NC (which is in the bad) and Indiana (red state). I truely believe that Indiana will be it!
Besides, women live longer than men on average, so there's more life left in the old girl than there would be in a man of the same age.
David, the point about a female American president breaking the glass ceiling still applies, even though many other countries have had female heads of state and heads of government (Canada, the UK, Germany, India, Pakistan all come to mind). The US is still the world leader, even if in a sharp decline now, and the job of President of the USA is still considered the highest office in the world by many.