J-scribe

As the US Democratic nomination goes down to the wire, with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continuing to fight it out in the primaries, I thought I'd share with you the insights of a young American journalist.

Ryan Mock is a former student of mine - he studied Journalism and Sports Media at the University of Canberra. He now works as a baseball broadcaster in Maryland but he retains a keen interest in politics.

When I asked him for his take on the "first black-man vs. first woman Democratic presidential nomination battle", this is what he wrote in reply:


Straight away, I want to make one thing clear: I'm pro-Obama for Democratic Nominee, if for no other reason than because he is not Hillary Clinton. So, that should help you understand my position from the get-go.

Hillary Clinton is a very political animal. She has in the last 15 years gone from being relatively unknown to being one of the strongest First Ladies the US has ever known to being a Senator for the state of New York all with the intention of becoming the first female US President in 2008. She's known she'd be running for this presidency for years. So did everyone else, and the sense of excitement (amongst some) and entitlement was palpable. The US media has frequently mentioned her as being the inevitable choice for the Democrats, and that the "Clinton Political Machine" basically guarantees her ascendancy to the Oval Office. As late as November/December it was never a question, the only discussion was regarding second place. And Edwards was the logical choice for second place and a vice presidency.

Obviously, things have not quite gone according to script, and Hillary has from time to time panicked, and shown what I believe to be her true colors. The vaunted Clinton Political Machine has backfired against a candidate that seems to be more-or-less taking the high road, and she doesn't really know how to deal with it. She can take on Republicans because she can sling mud at them without fear of revolt amongst her party. She could take on other Democrats by being better prepared, smarter (which she almost certainly is), and more convincing as a leader. This has not worked against the smoother talking, more charismatic and less partisan Obama. But we'll get to that in a moment.

Clinton's biggest draw is now the fact that she is, indeed, a woman. There are many, many women out there who are lining up to vote for her entirely because she's female. They may not 100% agree with her politics, in fact they may completely disagree with her politics, but they are willing to vote for one of their own than for what they believe is actually best for them. Even Oprah's alliance with Obama has not been completely effective at swaying the general female population, and Oprah is probably the most influential female in the last 50 years in the US (yeah, I know it sounds like over-the-top hyperbole, but it's true. It's ridiculous, but it's true). Women in America are sick of seeing so many countries in the "West" (and some not necessarily in the "West": Benazir Butto comes to mind) with female leaders, strong, well respected female leaders, while America can't even get a female on the ballot. It's true, the US is long overdue on a female president. I would love to see a female president. Just not Hillary Clinton.

And here is basically why: if Hillary Clinton comes into office at the start of 2009, in 2013 the United States will still be in trouble in the Middle East, we might be in a conflict elsewhere (Venezuela? Korea? Iran? Who knows?) and the American political process will have been terribly bogged down due to Clinton's inability to play nice with others. She is the most partisan of the major candidates in either party outside of Rudy Giuliani (who thankfully bowed out. I was terrified by the idea of Rudy in office. I would have immediately moved out of the county). And partisanship at this point in American history will basically kill us. We are not liked overseas, our only two parties of note are at loggerheads over most every topic and are completely unwilling to make any concessions. Clinton will only exacerbate each of those problems. She is just too political and seems unwilling, or unable, to work with others in an actual effort to improve our nation's standing in the world. If Clinton comes into office it will indeed be politics as usual. She might be a better speaker than W., but she won't be much better as a president. And this is ignoring another salient point about political dynasties in the US. If we go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, we are in a real danger of becoming not just a two party system but a two family system. There are plenty of Bush family members already looking to run in 2012 or 2016, which is a scary thought!

That brings us to Obama, and I hope to make this section slightly shorter, which makes sense as no one knows as much about Obama as Clinton. He is somewhat unknown... even still. Now, that's not necessarily a ringing endorsement, but the unknown is still always preferable to the unwanted. He is charismatic. He is a wonderful speaker. He genuinely seems to be able to get along with members of both parties (which is odd considering he is actually the more left-wing of the two Democratic nominees...or so we believe). He is black. He is also completely unwilling to say much about his politics. So, what to make of Barack Obama?

What is his stand on the war in Iraq and war in general? Against it, but how much so is debatable. How about health care? Would like to see everyone covered but doesn't want to impose a state-sponsored health care system. How about taxes? Abortion? Immigration? In each his policy seems to be "talk about it and hope to work with everyone to find a solution." Which might just be politicalese for "I don't have any idea" or "you won't like my plan so I'm not telling you" but it also might mean he genuinely wants to work with both sides of government to get things done.

He has the opportunity to become another JFK. And in America that is high, high praise. JFK is the one president that people from both sides of the aisle truly believe could have changed things. My uber-conservative Uncle in rural Washington State still gets misty eyed about how Kennedy was different, Kennedy was ready to make some big changes in America, and the US was a much, much lesser place after Kennedy was shot. My uncle probably would have voted for Giuliani if he had a choice, now he'll probably vote for Ron Paul. Obama's "upside", to use a popular sporting term, is to become another such figure in American politics. If he is elected, it could be that everyone under the age of 30 will look back on his time in office as a golden era in American history. He also seems the most likely to be assassinated. There is still a whole lotta racism in the south, and plenty of white guys with guns who'd be willing to take a shot.

The downside of Obama is that he has no clear idea on anything. He could be just a good speaker and have nothing to back it up. It's quite possible. Some might even say probable.

But one thing is clear to me. If Obama is elected as the next president of the United States, our standing in the international community will be improved. He's an excellent speaker, people are genuinely drawn to him and I believe he will try hard not to make enemies. If Clinton is elected president, I believe the opposite is inevitable.

For my comments on the media's portrayal of Hillary Clinton see this post.

For a similar perspective, read Jane Caro's New Matilda piece on the theme here
   [read more]