I wouldn’t call this an endorsement.

By that I mean that the word “endorsement” conjures in the mind images of newspapers and important people throwing their clout behind a politician in order to get them elected. I am not important enough to deliver such “endorsements” — I’ll leave that to The DP, The New York Times and Ted Kennedy.

In the most humble terms, here is why I think Hillary Clinton should be president.

Senator Clinton has shown consistency in being an effective manager of people in the United States Senate. She has also shown she knows how Congress works and that she is an effective politician in her own right. If she were to try and change anything, or even be a wholesale agent for change, like Senator Obama wants to be, she will know what to change, and how to go about doing it without greatly angering a lot of people who could make life difficult for him.

Universal health care is an issue she has championed for years and I have admired her for it. She made many enemies when she tried back in the early nineties, but now people pine for it, as inequality in wealth in this nation has continued to grow. We know that this is an issue close to her heart and that she will eventually decide to expend the political capital to achieve her vision.

(more…)

This is the last in a four part series — my reaction to each of the opinion pieces the candidates write for The DP and finally my reaction to The DP’s endorsement. I write purely critiquing each candidate’s piece, and not from my own political point of view.

The DP’s argument for endorsing Senator Clinton is persuasive. It is definitely a clear argument to say that “hope alone” isn’t enough to place someone in the Oval Office.

Time is also on Senator Obama’s side. He has yet to serve a full term in the United States Senate, and The DP makes the point that a better demonstration of his capabilities in a national theatre would place him better to be president at a later date.

The DP also hails Senator Clinton as a “successful champion for change.” I’m not sure if this is quite right. I think of the Senator more as the agent of how to make the existing system work well, as opposed to wholesale change.

A big chunk of the editorial is devoted to healthcare, which has been demonstrably close to Senator Clinton’s heart for many years now. I come from a country with universal healthcare. The British National Health Service may have huge, perhaps even insurmountable, problems of its own, but it is there for all who need it.

That must be appealing in any country without universal healthcare, but here in America, the world’s wealthiest nation, it must be increasingly galling to many that it doesn’t exist here.

(more…)