I still might vote for Obama, but…..
Yesterday, I had the privilege of watching (on C-SPAN) former President Clinton speak to a church audience as he outlined the specifics of why his wife would be the best choice for the Presidency.
It was vintage Clinton, as he bit his lip, but also artfully blended the rational and emotional as he weaved stories of how his father operated a grocery store in a Negro neighborhood in the 1940s. Many poor customers never paid, but Clinton’s father thought that any man who worked, deserved to be able to feed his family. He brought up his own mother’s record of hard work as a nurse, and how “I have been waiting my whole life to vote for a woman.”
Hilary Clinton has a record of working with actual accomplishments (children’s health insurance) that has tremendously affected the well-being of Americans. She also wants a health plan that is TOTAL in its entirety, covering everyone, so that the costs are lowered for ALL.
One of the arguments against Hilary is that she cannot be trusted because she voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. Obama, by contrast, claims to have always been consistent in his opposition to the war.
But another one of Obama’s “selling points” is called “CHANGE” which he holds up as his emblem. Yet, if we are voting for the future, shouldn’t we place health care reform at the top of our agenda, since the Iraq War is largely in the PAST?
If we look ahead at Iraq, absolutely nobody running for President can possibly predict what course of action will be best for our nation in one, two, ten or twenty years.
But in terms of national, universal health care, it is absolutely a certainty that our country will be better off if everyone can be insured.
That’s why the logical case for Hilary is stronger than the emotional one for Obama.