Primary Place Online

As the Primary loomed just two days away, I decided that I needed to go see Senator Clinton in person. When I saw John Edwards in December, he concluded his remarks by urging all of us to go, go and stand in a room with each of the candidates and get a feel for what kind of person they were and determine whether our gut said we could trust them with the Presidency. In the last few weeks, I've found myself increasingly influenced by the media's summary of the negative reactions to Clinton--not likable, insincere in her allegiance to the middle, part of the same machine as Bush, etc, etc. So off I went on Sunday night to see her live and to try and get a feel for whether what I was hearing was in fact accurate.

The Senator was nearly an hour and a half late to the rally. However, even with an aching back and numbing feet, I found it exciting and enthralling to be in her presence. It was clear that she was more enthusiastic and prepared on some issues more than others. The first question asked was that of the younger members of the audience who understandably wanted to know what she would do about Global Warming. Clinton, perhaps as a result of her years rubbing elbows with Al Gore, is willing to admit that Global Warming is happening, professes to believe that, unlike now, the US should be leading, not barricading, the world in reducing emissions and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. She spoke of fueling the economy with incentives and subsidies channeled away from oil companies and towards renewable energy. I've heard other candidates talk about Global Warming and needing to do something about it, but I appreciated that Clinton's comments were specifically tied to creating renewable energy industries, which would in turn, fuel the economy as well as our cars and homes. I did think that her comments about "putting people to work weather proofing houses" sounded a little too "New Deal", but I can forgive her for the Depression-era imagery. Hopefully, the economy isn't that bad yet.

I asked her what role she felt the Federal government had in the housing crisis. She wasn't as excited or prepared to respond to this question and while she failed to provide any specifics other than putting a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures, she did manage to hit on a subject that I haven't heard talked about before. She said that what is happening in the mortgage market is tied to the high cost of health care, higher education, oil, and housing, and the stagnation of wages and rising unemployment. For a Democrat, she was sounding like an economist. I appreciated her pointing out what most of us feel on a daily basis--all these issues are connected and are magnifying the intensity of one another and need to be addressed collectively in some way. In the remainder of her time, she addressed all the major issues including her health care plan, education and what we should do about No Child Left Behind. She reiterated again and again the amount of experience she has as a policy maker and that she is a doer.

I left with a renewed sense of awe and excitement over the prospect of a woman becoming President. I can't say that the evening in her presence necessarily dispelled any of the criticism I had floating around my head (With the exception of the likeability issue. I found her both charming and human. I suspect that if she were a man, that never would have been suggested in the first place), but it also didn't confirm any of those concerns. I am still mulling over whether to cast my vote in favor of someone like Clinton with a track record or with someone like Obama with the gift of rhetoric and the ability to energize a following. Someone once told me that you lead people but manage projects. The question is does this country need a leader of it's people or a manager of it's policies? Clearly, we need someone capable of both. Few of the candidates seem to have both of these qualities at this point. But which comes first, the leader or the policy maker? I'm not sure I know which I think is more important.