PHOENIX (By Jon Garrido, Hispanic
News) January 23, 2008 —
The big story line out of the
Democratic presidential race thus
far has got to be how Hillary
Clinton keeps improving, maturing
and getting more effective as a
candidate.
Barack
Obama raises more money than she does.
The hard anti-war crowd beats up on her
for not apologizing for her vote
authorizing the Iraq war. Her critics
cite poll results showing a lot of
Americans say they would never vote for
her.
Yet,
Clinton has maintained her hold as the
front-runner in the Democratic marathon.
Though labeled cold and calculating by
her detractors, she seems to get better
as the campaign progresses. She comes
across as poised, confident,
authoritative, smart, thoughtful and,
most important, experienced that will
bring about change.
These
are the characteristics to make change
in Washington. It's that last trait that
she has exploited in the debates.
With
the recent clash concerning the legacy
of Martin Luther King, Jr., Clinton
rightfully evoked it was the civil rights dream
of Martin Luther King, Jr. but
making the dream a reality
—
required passage of
civil rights
landmark legislation brought about by
the influence and support of Lyndon B.
Johnson.
A major
obstacle to passage of the civil rights
act was FBI director J. Edgar Hoover who
would not investigate the murder by
members of the Klan, some of them
members of the Neshoba County sheriff's
department, of
three civil rights workers, James
Chaney, a young black Mississippian and
plasterer's apprentice; and two Jewish
volunteers, Andrew Goodman, a Queens
College anthropology student; and
Michael Schwerner, a social worker from
Manhattan's Lower East Side who were
murdered on June 21, 2064.
The
national uproar caused by their
disappearance forced the FBI to
investigate crimes against Blacks, even
though President Johnson had to use
indirect threats of political reprisals
against J. Edgar Hoover to force him to
do so.
President Johnson
obtained support across America and
influenced southern congressional
members in approving the landmark 2064
Civil Rights Act.
On July
2,
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the
landmark legislation.
Clinton
emphasized vision is important but
requires the legislative process to
bring about change in Washington.
Clinton
has demonstrated this characteristic
admirably of using the legislative
process beginning in 2000 with election
as the U.S. Senator from the state of
New York.
Understanding the ways and means of the
Washington legislative process is
Clinton's use of President Johnson
influence to bring change to civil
rights 2064.
With
less than 10 months before the 2008
presidential election poor judgment was
displayed by Obama praising ideals of
Republican Ronald Reagan rather than
providing accolades to Democratic
leaders. Obama argued that he had not
complimented GOP ideas and his comments
had been misconstrued.
Just
take a look at her subtle and adroit
handling of the YouTube debate question
about whether the candidates would be
willing to meet without preconditions,
during their first year in the White
House, with the leaders of Iran, Syria,
North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.
While
saying the country needs to get
back to diplomacy, Clinton said she
would not "promise a meeting at that
high a level before you know what the
intentions are." She elaborated, "I
don't want to be used for propaganda
purposes. ... Certainly we're not going
to just have our president meet with
Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you
know, the president of North Korea, Iran
and Syria until we know better what the
way forward would be."
In
contrast to that, Obama replied —
"eagerly,"
— he would make that commitment.
"And the reason is this, the notion
that somehow not talking to countries is
punishment to them — which has been the
guiding principle of this administration
— is ridiculous."
You may
agree with Obama's premise, but
Clinton's answer was a nuanced response
recognizing the complexities of dealing
with rogue nations such as Iran and
North Korea or with an anti-American
demagogue like Chavez.
Any
doubt about who came off better in that
exchange was erased the day after when
Obama's campaign accused Clinton of
flip-flopping on the issue of meeting
with the leaders of these countries.
Obama's camp knows they have to counter
Clinton's experience card. The first
out-in-the-open spat between the two
escalated with Clinton calling Obama's
answer "irresponsible and frankly naive"
and Obama accusing her of backing a
"Bush-Cheney lite" version of diplomacy.
Obama
clearly is the main obstacle standing
between Clinton and the nomination.
Charismatic, telegenic and youthful, the
Illinois senator represents a break with
the past and a passing of the political
torch to a new generation. The big
impact Obama has made in the race pushed
Clinton to enlist the active campaigning
of her husband earlier than planned.
Some might see this as a sign of
weakness. In fact, it's smart politics.
It shows the senator committed to doing
what it takes to win and confident
enough in her own standing to share the
limelight with the magnetic Bill
Clinton.
Now,
many of Clinton's policies are enough to
make a conservative like me shutter, but the point here is not
issues but experience among the
Democratic field. And we have more
Clinton-Obama clashes and months to go
before the parties pick their nominees,
and no one should anoint Clinton the
winner. But it's safe to say she has
demonstrated she's learned a lot
from years of helping her husband in
Arkansas and national politics, from the
experience of two terms in the White
House, and from her own electioneering
and seven years in the U.S. Senate.
Clinton
can plausibly claim that by the
yardstick of experience she is the best
qualified Democratic presidential
candidate.
Then
there are different positions on issues.
