V,
But where there is a huge difference between them is in their integrity (at least as I perceive it) and that is as important to me as their positions on the issues. You yourself pointed out that Clinton on so many issues " seems to have tested out all the positions for size before picking one that seemed politically expedient." I read that Chronicle article too, and I think the author missed an important point. Obama and his advisers no full well that supporting driver's licenses for illegal immigrants is not a politically expedient position, and that the votes that he will lose because of that position is likely to outweigh any gains in the Hispanic community. But when he takes a position, he generally remains steadfast. That is what raises him above Hillary Clinton, even more than his oratorical skills and ability to inspire.
Yes, that is significant to me. And Ms. Clinton lost my genuine support due to her "expedient" approach to an issue near and dear to my heart. General Pace, some months ago, came out in favor of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," stating that homosexuality was immoral behavior. Hillary's first comment was that she would "leave it up to others to decide" whether homosexuality was immoral. Within 24 hours, gays and allies had clued her into the fact that she said the wrong thing, and she immediately took the decision away from others whether homosexuality was immoral, opining:
Well, I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love.
That's when I realized (be patient with me, I'm a young'un) that Hillary was so deeply ambitious that she would (in the parlance of a favorite show of mine, Queer as Folk), "say anything, do anything, f*ck anything" to get elected. I apologize for the profane expression, but that is really what I think of her. I think that her actions will consistently reflect the political consensus, and I do not believe she will be a friend to any group whose needs contradict the political consensus (as her stance on illegal immigration proves.) I am no wholesale fan of hers. Apart from the female commonality, the part of me that can relate to her is a part of which I am not necessarily proud - the part that will "say anything, etc." (within, in my case, basic ethical parameters) to achieve goals. I'm not so quick to condemn her because I can relate to her strong and passionate (if often calculating) approach to achieving her goals. I don't automatically believe that's a bad thing for our country. (In fact, as someone who (to some extent) shares that tendency of hers, I am sensitive to the extent I perceive her to be more greatly condemned for it because she is a woman. And yes, I absolutely think that sexism plays into that critique of her.)
If we are to distinguish between someone who will do what politics dictates and someone who will act according to his innate sense of what is right, I need to understand what the practical ramifications of the distinction are. (The latter is not automatically a positive; indeed, GWB has often acted according to his innate sense of what is right. Few things have been as tragic to our country for recent years.) Where Hillary's positions are so similar to Barack's, I have yet to be convinced that the distinction is tenable. Indeed, Hillary's ability to be practically electable (i.e. to compromise positions and goals) may be an ASSET in the coalition building necessary to govern at the federal level.
At least here in this thread, I am the main person who has made the contention that Clinton has no more relevant experience than Obama, and I most definitely have not pointed to a "laundry list of errors" that she has allegedly made. Nor have I seen anyone else point.
I have not followed this thread as closely as I should (partly for reasons I have already shared with you). I can truthfully state I was not referring to anything you said. I was thinking of (1) remarks made by Obama's stand-in at a political proxy debate for the four remaining Democratic candidates, at an event I attended last night at the SF Jewish Community Center and (2) remarks made by Obama supporters at recent San Francisco Young Democrats events that I have attended. It was not intended as a pointed remark at you. I apologize if it came across as such; you simply weren't on my mind when I said that.
I will say again that the vast majority of her professional life was spent as corporate defense attorney, and that that experience does not qualify as the type of public service experience that she claims to have (which again goes to the integrity/trustworthy issue).
Well, I will be the last person to decline to vote for someone because of her corporate defense attorney past, although I know that corporate defense-side law firms are not your favorite entities.
In her defense, I would gently remind readers that Hillary also participated in the following during her law years:
- Member, Yale Review of Law and Social Action
- Student intern/postgraduate worker, Yale Child and Study Center
- Student volunteer, New Haven Legal Services
- Student intern, Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project (research on migrant workers' issues)
- Student intern, Treuhaft, Walker & Bernstein (Bay Area; worked on child custody cases)
- Staff attorney and later Chair, Children's Defense Fund (Cambridge, MA)
- Consultant, Carnegie Counsel on Children
- Staff attorney, House Committee on the Judiciary (Watergate)
- Lecturer/Professor (not sure of title), University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law
- Co-founder, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
- Chair, Board of Directors, Legal Services Corporation
- Chair, Arkansas Rural Health Advisory Committee (to be fair, this was under her husband's administration)
- Chair, Arkansas Educational Standards Committee (ditto)
- Chair, ABA's Commission on Women in the Presidency
- Board member, Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services
- Published policy articles on children's/family law in major publications, including Yale Law Journal
Oh yes, and by the way, during that time, she broke ANOTHER glass ceiling by becoming the first female partner in her corporate law firm (as one of millions of women who is following in her footsteps, I believe that we have to thank her, not condemn her, for participating - and succeeding - in the corporate law firm world at a time when women were severely discriminated against for even trying. The job I do every day would not have been open to me without the thousands of women, of which Hillary was one, who paved the way when the going was painfully difficult.) As a corporate defense-side attorney with long-term public service aspirations, I must strongly protest any insinuation that corporate law firm work disqualifies someone for said public service - especially when one remains as committed to finding time to serve the public interest as Ms. Clinton's resume indicates. (and, if someone does find the time, then it seems to me that they are entitled to cite their public interest endeavors, notwithstanding their corporate law background) I am learning firsthand the hours required in the world of corporate law, and I admire anyone who could remain partner track while indulging as many public interest assays as she was able to do. I am satisfied, based on the professional affiliations I have quoted above, that she is amply justified to claim public service experience (and I strenuously disagree that it calls her integrity into question if she claims said experience.) Quite frankly, very few people that I know of, beginning with me, have done (or even hope to do) nearly as much in the public interest.
L_M, I'd like to respond to your point about glass ceilings, but unfortunately, it will not happen tonight.
) - but I feel a powerful sense of identification with Hillary. 
