Skip to main content

Election 2016: Hillary’s virtues and why #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016.

Okay, I’ve been through why the GOP has given up the high road, why Hillary’s scandals don’t sway me, why 3rd parties are not great choices, and four reasons why Trump is unacceptable. That’s all true, and would be enough for me to vote for Hillary.  But I actually WANT to vote for Hillary, for positive reasons, and I wanted to close this series with my reasons for liking her.

Before I go into the specific reasons, I think it is worth noting that I definitely have positive memories of Hillary from very early in my life. I have lived the vast majority of my life in Arkansas, and I don’t remember not knowing who the Clintons were. You might think from how red a state Arkansas now is that the Clintons were disliked … but that is laughably far from the truth. They invigorated a state, decades behind in many areas, with a passion and relevance that has not been equaled since. And Arkansans loved them, and voted for them (often north of 60%).  Many of the middle-aged people that currently decry them were happy supporters in the 80s, and the Clintons have remained virtually the same, with only small evolutions since then. I grew up watching them, and—like most people—I’ve always prospered when they were in office.  But, nostalgia aside, on to the specific reasons.

First, let’s start with the obvious: her lifetime of public service.  She has been helping women and children since college.  Her book It Takes a Village is only one small part of that, as is her bringing to prominence the quote that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.”  Her experience as the First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, New York Senator, and Secretary of State comprise a resume that few people to aspire to the presidency have ever had, putting her in the company of luminaries like Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

Second, I appreciate her knowledge, intelligence, and judgment.  She went through Yale law, reshaped the role of the First Lady, and is generally just a really smart person. She has extremely strong policy knowledge and a long history of working with people of all stripes.  She is also gifted with the ability to admit when mistakes are made … which wouldn’t be a gift if so many people didn’t refuse to admit mistakes.

This knowledge includes her ability to work systems. She knows how the presidency works from her time as First Lady and as Secretary of State, and she knows how the legislature works from her time as Senator. She can work the systems and get things done. With the gridlock that has stymied recent administrations, I look forward to someone that has shown her ability to break through logjams in the past.

Third, she’s well regarded internationally, and has been for decades.  She could continue moving forward on international relations that she built in the 90’s and as Secretary of State. Here is a breakdown of what she did by our Hungarian Ambassador.   And the world generally thinks positively of her, according to polls. 

Fourth, she has the temperament to lead. This is not about her opponent, but about her – she is just unflappable. You can bring whatever you want against her, and she has seen it before, and she knows how to handle it. She has talked with dictators and come out whole.  She knows how to do the job.

Fifth, I like her positions. This campaign has not been about policies and positions, but I wish it had been. She has a strong progressive agenda that has realistic aims with aspirational goals. It includes movement forward to protect the climate; improving the lives of LGBT; criminal justice reform; several health initiatives I care about (mental health, Alzheimer’s, autism, HIV, substance abuse, health care itself); reasonable gun law reforms that do not hurt our abilities to defend ourselves; campaign finance reform; economic issues (infrastructure, manufacturing, technology, growth across class lines, Wall Street reform); race relations; and many others.  Unlike many of my liberal friends, I like that she is not against the idea of business doing well, but unlike many of my conservative friends, I like that she would like to level the playing field and not let big business rule. And I like that her plans are well researched, extensive, and actionable.

Sixth and finally, she is herself.  She is the most vetted person to ever run for President. Like President Obama, she is an example that we are transcending some of the worst aspects of our past – with gender instead of race, this time. And, being a nerd myself, I love that she is a policy wonk, a huge nerd that demands to know the details and figure out how to find the cracks between disagreements to get to a harmony and slow, steady movement forward.

I like her. I’m with her. And I voted for her.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano
Post a Comment
Read more

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016 . To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist. To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlik
Post a Comment
Read more

Astrologists and racists, or this is where the party ends

How are astrologists like racists?  There could be a funny one-liner response to that, I'm sure, but the answer I'm looking for is simple:  They are lazy thinkers. I'm going to spend a few paragraphs here doing a cursory job of debunking both viewpoints and showing why they are lazy, but I'm not going to go into much detail, as that's not the real point I want to make. Astrology:  Really?  You honestly think that 1/12th of the human race will have the same general set of experiences based on when they were born?  (This is assuming the "normal" Zodiac, though a similar thing can be said about, for instance, the Chinese Zodiac, and this is ignoring the silliness added in by distinguishing between "Sun signs" and "moon signs.")  Do you realize that these signs were based on people believing some quite inaccurate things about the stars (like virtually anything besides that they are gaseous giants that are light years away)?  Did you kno
2 comments
Read more