StandingWater Creations

I find it interesting that HRC talks (at all) about her Bosnia trip and has remembered it, differently, as a harrowing experience where she landed and had to leave the tarmac under gunfire. According to news reports, reporters, and videos, she landed, with her daughter, and walked, slowly, across the tarmac speaking to people, shaking hands, and then getting into cars. At no point, according to news reports, was she in any danger; nor could we expect that, as First Lady of the United States - a title, would she have been allowed to go to that country had there been the chance of her being shot down, shot at, or in any significant danger.

And yet, as a candidate for President, or wanna-be candidate, she uses this story to show that she's been in dangerous situations. This is not unintentional, and I am sure that HRC would like to believe that she has more experience on the international stage than she really does. As a candidate, with experience, she is about on par with Obama. Neither of them have a ton of experience leading states, leading nations, or interacting on the international stage. For that matter, neither does McCain. What we are trying to decide in this election is who is the best of a group of poor candidates to lead the country.

I make no bones about who I intend to vote for and who I want as president. I think that we should go in a completely different direction. Voting for McCain is a vote for G.W. and the current way of doing things. Voting for HRC is similar to voting for Bill Clinton, and his way of doing things. More, we know, in advance, that HRC will push and try to force through legislation that universalizes healthcare in this country. Not really my cup-o-tea either.

In the realm of legislation, though, HRC has also chosen to remember a story about a lady who was refused treatment at a variety of hospitals. When you look deeper, in the news, you discover that this woman (who has a name that HRC refuses to share) actually did receive treatment, was not refused, and did have complications that have nothing to do with the story that HRC chooses to share.

In the light of day, though, you start to look at a variety of instances with HRC that indicate that having her as President will be a lot like having Bill back in office. I didn't mind, so much, that he was president as talk radio and the news and news in general became very interesting. However, as a result of that presidency, I think the country was hurt... it was hurt in part because our current president has been allowed to run rampant with the appearance of being a god-fearing man, and with the allowances to go about attacking countries and tearing down dictatorships. Essentially, G.W. has become a temporary despot and we, the people, allow him to continue.

Granted, in the light of day, like HRC, he can do what he likes within the rule of law. I don't think G.W. has broken the law, at least, not within the light of the current press situation in the country... though I think that time (after he is out of office) will tell exactly what has taken place during his presidency. I can see a slow ebbing forth of information as people begin to realize the extent of this presidents actions that will ripple across the news and across the country for the next decade, at least.

HRC, though, is already proving that she will alter the facts for her own use and ends. In her case, the facts are fluid and she learned this, in part, with her husband as they lived in the White House. Granted, she is a powerful woman in her own right, but as a candidate and potential leader, to have someone rampantly share falsehoods in the light of day and in the light of increasing press and public scrutiny I honestly wonder how it is that HRC, Bill, or anyone else thinks they can get away with remembering things wrong.

The problem, though, is not that HRC remembers something one way or another, it is that she chooses to continue promoting it, allows her husband to promote it, and does nothing about it when the press call her on the table. I can understand a pet project - like health care - for someone, but that project is dulled and made less as a result of her embellishing experiences. I can understand her desire to show an understanding of international politics and expressing her experience in some way, but to fabricate a dangerous situation in Bosnia is a falsehood.

Moreover, HRC is not any more qualified than McCain or Obama to be there to answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. None of them have the experience necessary to answer that phone and make an informed decision. Truth told, no incoming president has that experience regardless of whether he served as a governor, senator, or congressman. There are indicators that would suggest someone as being more capable - cabinet members, military experience, and such, but in this situation even McCain spent his military service as a POW and has a great deal of experience empathizing with the atrocities of war, but not in commanding men in battle or understanding what takes place in the war room.

With all of that, Obama is a dark horse. He is the one we know the least about. As a lawyer he was good at what he did. As a state senator, he was successful and followed the party line, which is to be expected. The man has the ability to unify people whereas McCain and HRC are both going to further divide this country. Sure, I am, at heart, far more conservative in the things I would like to see happen/happening, and I believe, at this point in the process, that the best man to support where I would like to see the country going is Obama - but that does not mean, at this point, he will be the president.

However, I do believe he has the overall support to get the nomination. You see, the Democratic Party has their own, unique, way of nominating a candidate. The candidates all go out and try to get the majority of states votes vying for a set number. The problem, though, is that in a tight race, neither candidate can accomplish all of the pledged delegates necessary to secure the nomination (as McCain has done for the Republican Party) which then lends itself to the Super Delegates. Super Delegates are a group of elected and party officials who can vote for whomever they like. Apparently, this caused a turnover of who received the nomination nearly forty years ago, the memory of which causes the Democratic Party's Super Delegates to declare who they will vote for (en mas) before there is a clear front-runner. At present, Obama is the clear front-runner, though both HRC and Obama are still getting Super Delegates offering their support.

In Utah news, the currently pledged Super Delegates (two women... there are actually six in this state... but I am referring to the women) are suggesting they will probably change their pledge from HRC to Obama. Jimmy Carter (past president - raised the price of peanuts and isn't considered a great president) has suggested he is ready to support Obama. Even a close Clinton friend and ally in the Governor of New Mexico has chosen to support Obama.

The writing appears to be on the wall. That writing is that Obama will be the next Democratic Presidential candidate. And yet, the race continues. People watch places like Pennsylvania and talk about how this could make or break Obama... and I don't care. He will do well enough between now and the Democratic National Convention to secure the nomination. HRC will obfuscate things as much as possible. She will pull tricks out of her hat. She will make a lot of people feel like she can take the helm. This almost has the feel of life or death to me.

Romney dropped out when he realized he couldn't win. He didn't try to undermine the party or the candidate and the news believes he is trying to become the Vice-President or to setup a presidential run in 2012 or 2016. And, in that instance, I think that's great. It doesn't matter, to me, whether or not McCain has Romney on the ticket, he doesn't get my vote unless Obama succumbs and puts HRC onto his ticket and then I won't support him for her.

The point to much of this is that we don't have a single person who can prove qualifications for president. In HRC's case, she chooses to remember things in a way that puts the appearance of experience. Because of her fluid way of thinking, speaking, and presenting, she can do as she pleases, but I am not interested in having her as the president. I am of the opinion that a) we need a female president, and b) we need a black president, and c) having either of these would be good for the country; but in the case of HRC as the first female president, I think it would hurt our country more than it would help.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly