I wanted to post the link the the Newsweek Article and accompanying video that shows Hillary’s answer to the question yesterday where she showed some emotion in regard to the future of this country. Of course the Hillary haters have chalked up the emotion to Hillary’s alleged “fakeness”, but if their view is true and that whole moment was contrived, then Hillary should have gone into acting, because she would be deserving of an Academy Award. I, for one, can’t see anything but sincerity behind her response. Frankly, the sentiment that she expresses is one that I agree with wholeheartedly. And in spite of the somewhat sexist comments voiced below the article (where they talk about emotion as a sign that Hillary is too weak and that a female isn’t capable of being president), I keep going back to my feminist mantra – “the personal is political”, and I think that Hillary being willing to show the intersection of the two is exactly why we need her, a strong woman, as president. People need to stop thinking of the political arena as this place that is devoid of ourselves and our emotions. It isn’t. And frankly, that recognition that Hillary voices here shows why she could make such a difference. In the traditional world of “realpolitik” where we use words like “collateral damage” to talk about the deaths of innocent people, the kind of sensibility that she shows here shows how she can truly bring a more human, realistic approach to politics.
New Hampshire makes me nervous, but I am still hopeful that the rest of the country may be able to see things in a different way. I think that Obama is really electric in person and in New Hampshire and Iowa, so many of the voters have seen him in person, and feed off of his energy that explains why they vote for him, even without perhaps considering whether or not there is substance behind his promises. In other states, his canned speeches can’t have that same physical impact. However, I am sure that his media sound-biting will continue. And I have to accept the fact that most of my fellow Americans don’t have time to look and see if they have policy positions (and an actual method for accomplishing those ends). Sigh.
I still am having a hard time moving beyond Obama’s view on Pakistan and his statements (which he has stood by on multiple occasions), that we could consider entering into Pakistan for a military action, even without the consent of that nation. I keep coming back to that, because another, relatively inexperienced president had the same position about the disregard for the sovereignty of another country, namely Iraq. Maybe it is just me, but when it is that easy to draw parallels between Bush and Obama, I just can’t find myself in support of Obama. I am actually surprised that this is Obama’s position, considering Samantha Power, who wrote a fantastic book on the U.S. and genocide is one of Obama’s advisors. But the even more shocking position that Obama has voiced (presumably with Samantha Power’s advice) is that the U.S. should pull out of Iraq even if a genocide takes place (this bothers me, because the U.S. by invading Iraq created the conditions in which a genocide now could become a potential reality). Foreign affairs are a top priority for me when it comes to voting for a president. Barack’s proposals show a lack of sincere consideration, in my view.
In contrast, I see Hillary as someone that champions diplomacy and building coalitions (the Newsweek article linked above also discusses this). She is at her best when she is talking about foreign affairs. In the debate on Saturday night, her response to the problems in Pakistan was the most cogent and realistic. With Hillary as president, I feel like we would have the opportunity to regain some international standing again.