It seems appropriate, only 17 days until Iowa, to make note of some interesting developments. First off, former President Bill Clinton appeared on the Charlie Rose show a few nights ago, speaking out for his wife's campaign. He scolded fellow Democrats who are thinking of supporting Senator Barack Obama's candidacy. Clinton accused Obama that the latter had desired the presidency his entire life (and his wife has not?). The former President called an Obama nomination a "roll of the dice," one that would deprive the voters of his more "experienced" wife.

The irony in all of this, of course, is the fact that Bill Clinton himself ran as the "agent of change" candidate in 1992. He prided himself as being new, fresh, and clean of Washington's dirty politics. In that same year, Clinton was 46 years old. Today, in 2007, Barack Obama is 46 years old. I know you may say that Clinton was a governor before running for his party's nomination. However, note this direct quote: "The same old experience is irrelevant. You can have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience. And mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change."[1] Sounds like Obama, doesn't it? Nope, that is Bill Clinton in 1992.

My point is that the Clintons cannot accuse anyone of unchecked pride and ambition. I am not one who believes that Bill Clinton was a bad president because of his personal relationships. Yet, it is ridiculous for Bill to tout his wife's experiences and simultaneously deride Obama as too young and too risky. His wife's "experiences" and her place in the Washington establishment were the same factors he campaigned against in 1992. 

In the end, I vehemently oppose a Hillary Clinton presidency not based on her gender nor her last name, but for her policies (or lack thereof) and character. I am not opposed to a woman in the Oval Office, but let's not elect one for the simple precedence of electing one. I have never seen a more disingenuous politician in my entire life (except for maybe Mitt Romney). You cannot call her policy fluctuations mere flip-flopping; they are more of a constant sway towards political expediency. Whereas John Kerry came across in a somewhat sincere manner, Clinton appears to stake any position for the purpose of gaining the White House. For example, Hillary was for and against drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants during a single Democratic debate. Furthermore, the New York senator has continued to bash Republicans for pandering to special interest groups, even as she herself has built some friendly relations with big-spenders and shady political associates.

As for her touted “experience,” I find it hard to believe that voters will be fooled by the “I am a former First Lady and accomplished Senator” rhetoric. Accomplished? Hillary Clinton is a senator from New York because her husband has an office in Harlem. Besides running for president since forever, Clinton cannot point to any real achievements while in office. I may not agree with most of Barack Obama’s ideas, but at least he holds genuine and uncompromising positions. It is truly sad that Democrats view Senator Clinton as their most electable candidate for the general election. When all is said and done next November, Hillary will be left in the dust, the fence she had been trying to straddle to the presidency by her side, with Rudy or McCain galloping off towards 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.