Clinton, McCain, or Obama - who's the official candidate of CogentPassion?

A friend of mine asked me who I'm endorsing for President. I answered that I haven't endorsed anybody yet, and that even if I supported someone, I'm definitely not important enough to call it an endorsement.

Anyway....

I supported McCain in 2000, and I think in retrospect, we probably would have been better off with him (or, virtually anybody else!) I really didn't like at the time how the party lined up behind Bush. If you recall, there really wasn't much of a Republican primary, as Bush Jr. leveraged family and party connections to lock up the nomination without any serious debate. I wonder if McCain would have selected Jeb Bush as VP. Would have been a good combination.

I think my interest in McCain at the time was driven not by any particular McCain stance, but rather I thought he would make a good leader, which is still true. But, in the meantime, I've studied McCain a bunch since then, and I'm underwhelmed - not in a Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter "he's not a REAL Republican" sort of way. Instead, I'm really turned off by his expansive government/anti-Libertarian views. He hasn't met a problem that wouldn't be solved with more government or otherwise extend government management at the expense of market solutions or civil liberties. I think he'd continue many of Bush's policies, and looking forward, I see him extending government authority in the emerging environment and energy policy areas. (I'm OK with his approach to health care. I may be the only person in biotech that thinks legalizing drug reimportation and biogenerics might be a good idea.)

Oh, and I'm frightened by his professed lack of understanding of economic issues.

But, there's at least one scenario where I'd pull the lever for McCain: an election vs Hillary Clinton.

If I dislike McCain's views due to their heavy reliance on the government, I absolutely HATE the policies espoused by Hil. She really lost me in '93-'94 with her first attempt at health care reform. I'm not upset that she led the effort, or anything like that, but rather that her solution was a power-grab by the government. She's learned to use new terms, but her and her policy haven't changed. Consider her anti-free trade rhetoric, and her bottomless bag of government pablum (like the $5,000 baby bonds idea).

I'm also completely turned off by her distorted campaign rhetoric. 35 years of experience? Are those dog years? (Did you realize, btw, that Obama has more years of elective office than Hillary. Interesting that Obama doesn't really engage Clinton on the issue of experience.)

And, to be honest, I'd really like the Clintons to just go away. They embody a polarizing, cutthroat, unconstructive attitude, and I believe, held back America during the Clinton presidency. (Yes, many have fond memories of the Clinton presidency, but I find it very hard to identify any big and successful Clinton-driven initiatives or advances. The economy generally went well, and as a result government finances were good, but I'm not in the camp that says that whoever is in the White House has a big effect on the economy. The boom of the late '90's was driven by tech spending and increasing globalization, not because of any Clinton wizardry. Don't believe me? Read this great article @ US News.)

Which brings me to my current infatuation with Obama. He's a breath of fresh air, a new attitude, new voice, and a fresh start after 20 years of Bush-Clinton.

I'm a believer, and voted for him in the Virginia primary.

I really, really, really don't agree with many of his policies, but I believe that he'd get a bit more centrist once in office, and I think that he'd have a good, balanced conversation before enacting any of his most dramatic policy plans. (Unlike Clinton, who in her haste to enact her policies would look to steamroll opposition, eventually leading yet again to a polarized polity.)

However, it should be noted that there really aren't many policy differences between Clinton and Obama There is, though a tremendous difference in how each candidate would act on a daily basis. Clinton is first and foremost a manager, while Obama is a leader, and I'll take a leader over a manager for President. (Here's a bit more on the Clinton/Obama manager/leader differences.)


I haven't figured out with certainty what I'd do in a McCain/Obama clash. My current expectation would be to vote for Obama, but this could change pending further exposure to Obama, or if McCain selects a VP that gets me excited. (My favorite, and the guy that I've been touting as a Presidential candidate for several years is Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina. I've been a fan of his since his time in Congress as one of the "Contract With America" Congressmen.


In the end, my real preference would be to forgo choosing a candidate and instead vote for a result: gridlock resulting from one party holding Congress, and the other in the Oval Office. This result would limit the growth of the size of government, and defuse either party proposing wide-ranging and very wrong solutions for health care, energy, and the environment.

Sen. Clinton: "I'm running on 35 years of change."

Senator Clinton is trying to fuse her main tagline (experience) with what voters are asking for (change). Let's scrutinize her "35 years of change" from age 25 to today (60).

I'll fuse several biased and unbiased view of HRC's life into one timeline for you to decide if she's an agent of change (feel free to skip the detail to see the summary at the bottom). My sources for this analysis are:

wikipedia
NYT: "Milestones: Hillary Clinton"
Online study guide: "Life History of Hillary Clinton"
"Arkansas connections" - anti-Clinton website


1973: graduates Yale law school; does post-graduate study on children & medicine; turns down Bill Clinton's request to marry him.
1974: serves on Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, House Judiciary Committee
1974: fails Washington, DC bar exam.
1974: moves to Arkansas to take a position on the faculty of the University of Arkansas School of Law
1975: marries Bill Clinton
1977: joins the Rose law firm. Her primary focus is patent and intellectual property law, but her primary clients become banking and business ventures of political cornies (Jim McDougal, etc.) Also performs pro bono child advocacy work.
1977: starts 'Arkansas Advocates for for Children and Families.
1977: appointed to the Board of the Legal Services Corporation, a Congress-funded vehicle to provide legal services to the poor. Eventually served as Chairperson of the Board
1978: buys "Whitewater" land in the Ozark mountains
1978: turns $1,000 cattle futures investment into $100,000 in 10 months.
1978: becomes first lady of Arkansas
1979: named a partner at Rose law firm.
1979: makes $44,000 on a $2,000 investment in a cell phone franchise
1979: lobbies on behalf of the Nicaragaun Contras
1980: daughter Chelsea born.
1981: no longer first lady of Arkansas with Bill Clinton's electoral defeat.
1981: writes "If Reaganomics works at all, Whitewater could become the Western Hemisphere's Mecca."
1983: first lady of Arkansas again.
1983: named Arkansas woman of the year.
1984: named Arkansas mother of the year.
1988: named as one of the most influential lawyers in America
1993: First lady of the USA. She becomes the first First lady to ever be subject of a criminal investigation, and first to be subpoenaed
1993: Initiates what becomes the White House travel offices scandal. Fires 7 longtime WH employees with charges of mismanagement and embezzlement with the intent to outsource business to an Arkansas campaign supporter.
1994: authors Clinton Health Care plan developed in secret with Ira Magaziner. Thankfully, this single-payer approach is quickly shelved. As the plan was exposed, HRC's approval rating as First Lady fell to 35% - the lowest ever recorded for a First Lady. Opposition to the plan became a centerpiece of the Republican's 1994 Congressional election, and the Republicans picked up 53 seats in the midterm election.
1996: Publishes "It Takes a Village."
1996: appears before the Whitewater grand jury
1996: in a TV interview, says that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mt Everest. However, Clinton was born 6 years before Hillary summitted Everest, when Edmund Hillary was working as a beekeepper.
1997: helped establish SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
1998: on the Today Show, attributes the Lewinsky controversy to a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
2000: runs for US Senate
2001: Senator from NY
Senate record: characterized by her votes on important issues, but virtually no iniatives of her own; voted for war in Iraq and the Patriot Act; supported military action in Afghanistan; voted against Bush tax cuts; called for the FTC to investigate sex scenes in a video game; voted against prohibition of same-sex marriages
2006: wins re-election to the US Senate
2007: Democratic candidate for President
2007: disclosed that the Clinton's net worth is in excess of $50,000,000

dates uncertain or ranges::
1985-1992: served on TCBY's board of directors. (Yes, the yogurt store.)
1986-1992: served on Wal-Mart's board of directors.
'80's: chair of Arkansas 'Rural Health Advisory Committee'
'80's: chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, by which a statewide system of teacher testing was installed
1987-1991: chaired American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession.
1986-1992: chaired Children's Defense Fund.
'90's (as First Lady): advocated many health initiatives (more mammogran and prostate cancer testing, etc.)

Summary:
15 years as a corporate lawyer
heavily involved with corporate interests and definitely some very shady people and deals.
19 years as First Lady of Arkansas or the USA
6 years as a US Senator without much impact.
consistent and prominent voice for children and families

In conclusion: not only can I not see anything close to 35 years of change, I really don't see much of an impact in 35 years. Can anyone argue otherwise?

Return of Hillarycare?

From Cato, a timely reminder of Hillary Clinton's previous take on healthcare. (Remember that she chaired a commission, along with Ira Magaziner, to remake the US healthcare system during her husband's first term?)

Here's the impartial Wikipedia description of the Clinton effort.

Cato reminds us that Hillary's plan was, in a word, communist, with firm state ownership of healthcare delivery (through comprehensive rules and price controls) and control over every aspect of care, to the point that patients could be fined for deviating from the plan.

At the time, the opposition said that the Clinton plan was akin to letting the Post Office deliver healthcare, but I think the Cato author is right - it's like putting FEMA in charge of health care delivery.

I hope that Clinton's health care ideas have moderated over time, but even if so, I would guess that this is more a factor of sagely centrist advisors than an old dog learning a new trick.
We'll see with the next Congress. In some ways, this could be a positive, as with Congress under the control of the Democrats, there's no reason not to submit the party's best health care reform ideas, thus exposing them prior to the '08 Presidential election.