Here is an article from James Moore, co-author of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential" and TV political analyst, from CNN.com stating that Hillary should not run for president not due to the fact that she is not qualified, but the fact that America needs a new generation of American leaders rather than have another Clinton presidency:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/24/opinion/moore-hillary-clinton/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
Don't run, Hillary.
Nobody is saying the
former secretary of state, New York senator, U.S. and Arkansas first
lady, and Yale-trained attorney is not qualified for the White House. In
fact, she may have one of the most impressive résumés to ever be
submitted for the job. Clinton has a breadth of experience that
indicates she has every capability needed to be president of the United
States.
But it is time for America to move on.
The first argument
against another Clinton candidacy is generational. Baby boomers need to
release their arthritic fingers from the torch of leadership and pass it
off to another generation. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack
Obama will have accounted for 24 years of the presidency by 2016, which
seems more than sufficient. Clinton's election potentially extends
boomer influence in a manner that risks creating a generation gap that
further increases political disaffection among young voters.
Age is another important
consideration, regardless of howls of outrage on this question by her
supporters. Clinton would be 69 when she raised her right hand for the
oath of office. She would be the second-oldest person to become
president -- younger than Ronald Reagan by several months.
The pressures of the
White House amplify the afflictions of time. Arguably, an optimal
president combines an earned wisdom and natural intellect with the
residual energy of youth. No one does this by turning 70 during their
first year as president, which would be Clinton's status.
How long can Hillary Clinton wait?
Although doctors
pronounced her perfectly healthy after a recent scare with a blood clot
on the brain, the probabilities of geriatric disease in office are very
real for someone who might be 77 at the end of a second term.
Reagan's comportment
during his last years suggests that he had already begun moving behind
the veil of Alzheimer's. This is not ageism. An accumulation of years
defines our range of capabilities, physically and intellectually, and
the Clintons as well as the nation need to confront the question of
whether a person in their mid-70s is the best to serve as president. The
obvious answer is no.
There is, nonetheless,
no underestimating the cultural importance of the first female president
and the glory it will bestow upon history's grandest democracy. The
Democratic Party, too, will have an interest in being the political
organization that gave the country its first female as well as
African-American presidents.
Clinton, who is properly
positioned with experience, has other challenges that impede her
getting a chapter in future textbooks as the first woman in the Oval
Office.
America is weary of
limited political choices and dynasties. A second Clinton presidency
might culminate in 28 years of Clinton-Bush control. We are, more than
ever, a nation that desperately needs to renew itself with what is
different and hopeful and visionary. Unfortunately, there is too much
that is predictable with a second Clinton candidacy.
No one needs a time
machine to look into the future and see the grainy video in TV attack
ads with a baritone voice rattling on about Benghazi or mumblings about
how her husband enriched himself by accumulating a net worth of $55
million since leaving office.
"Don't the Clintons have enough?" the voice would ask. "And hasn't America had enough of the Clintons?"
In spite of the fact
that Clinton's accomplishments as secretary of state are significant,
including diplomatic efforts that averted a war between Israel and
Hamas, she is likely to be forced to endure campaign onslaughts accusing
her of character flaws for forgiving her husband's indiscretions, which
means the electorate probably has to endure at least some painful
flashbacks.
This is not, however, a
recommendation to back away from a fight. Clinton has proved that her
political knuckles are toughened with gristle, and she can skillfully
marginalize absurd allegations from her opponents. Instead of running
and winning a fierce campaign, there might be a more honorable endeavor
for the former secretary of state.
There is always a right
moment to leave the stage, and failing to recognize that timing can lead
to a lingering image that, in the longer term, overwhelms the
accomplishments of a person in the prime of their powers.
Hillary Clinton can make
a gracious exit. Yes, she has every right to run for president and is
brilliantly qualified for the job. That does not mean, however, she is
the best person at this time in America's narrative.
There is also nothing
inexorable about anyone's presidential candidacy, regardless of how
vehemently it is argued by Clinton's backers. Presumptive candidacies,
which appear initially like logical choices that are the consequence of
devotion and hard politics, often tend toward failure. The Dole, McCain
and Romney nominations, presumed candidates with generationally
disconnected politics, have sundered the GOP's power for possibly
decades.
Running for president because it is expected and seems like an obvious decision are clearly not the right motivations.
Clinton's service to her
country has already transcended even the starry-eyed youthful dreams
she shared with her husband. Beyond her time in office as U.S. senator,
and as secretary of state, and as counsel to Bill during his presidency,
the namesake foundation she leads with her husband and daughter is
having a profound impact in this country and internationally,
facilitating education, health care and nutritional programs. That
nonprofit needs her guidance and initiative.
America, though, is ready for different choices representing a new generation for president.
0 comments:
Post a Comment