Im not sure there is a single thing Hillary represents to people but Obama clearly represents "change". Change without any specifics is certainly appealing but how have change-candidates faired in the past?
In 2000, we elected Bush, Jr. His claim to fame was change. After 8 years of Bill Clinton (and Newt Gingrich), Bush was going to change the character and restore the dignity of the White House. Bush had character. He was a regular guy. Trustworthy, honest, someone you could talk to. He was not slick Willie. He wasnt gonna eat donuts while jogging or have sex with interns. Bush was a family man, a good Christian.
Well, we all know how that turned out. Total and complete disaster of historic proportions. The secrecy and the attacks on the Constitution may be forgotten quickly but the enormous amount of money Bush has borrowed will be remembered (and felt) as will his war. The war Bush started, the war he could not finish (or pay for). The war we are still arguing about.
In 1992, we had another change candidate. Tired of Republican rule after 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush, the country picked Bill Clinton instead of Ross Perot or Bush, Sr. Just like 2000, the country was looking for changes and the Clinton's came into office promising them.
Gays in the military. Hillary-care. NAFTA. The first few years of Clinton's reign were not smooth or terribly successful. You might even argue they were one embarrassing gaffe after another.
Whether it is in business or politics, the truth is that ideas are easy. Lots of people have ideas. Bright ideas, bad ideas, big ideas about how things could be better.
But there is always a reason things are the way they are. Even if things seem broken to you, the reason is rarely because no one has thought of a better way yet. Someone made things that way and that someone probably wants to keep them that way. Moreover that someone is probably raking in bags of cashola and is capable and motivated to fight changes.
Having "new ideas" or a "new direction" is no guarantee that you can actually implement those ideas and take us there. Moreover, the bigger the change, the harder it is to affect the change.
When comparing Hillary with Obama, I think a lot about this reality of making changes.
If Obama is elected, I expect a repeat of 1992 to 1996. A lot of young, excited people with big ideas are going come face to face with the depth of their naivete, the hard way; through failures and blunders.
The ability to make a change is one of the strongest reasons to elect someone like Hillary. We are not talking about Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan here. We are talking about a senator, who is both intelligent and extremely strong-willed. It is time we learned about who she is and stopped thinking of her as an extension of Bill.
Even though she wasnt in office herself, she was there. She knows what its like to have big ideas and to see them get twisted and squashed by entrenched special interests.
If someone can take a basic idea like better healthcare and twist it into a nationally recognized epithet like "Hillary-care", they can squash just about any good idea. 16 years later, we still have not faced our health care problems and that is only one of many huge issues facing our country and the planet in this election.
Things could change but I plan to vote for the toughest, meanest, most politically savvy candidate I can this year. I have enough big ideas. I want to see something actually get done.
