Submitted by John S. Patterson, Jan 25, 2008 06:50

Crocus-like objections about The Clinton Machine are pushing up early in this wintry campaign weather. Let me offer mine. I started out as a Hilary supporter, or at least acceptor. The field did not look promising and, as an African-American who worked in the Civil Rights movement, I dismissed Obama without considering him: African-American = Non-Electable. Then I listened to his ideas, familiarised myself with his record, and watched the response to his campaign. I listened again to the Clintons and remembered the people---my Mother even---who told me the hopes of the civil rights movement were childish and dangerous. Then I changed my allegiance. Now I believe that the election of Obama is an absolute necessity if we want to crack up the the mortar and cement which clogs the our system of governance. Why? First of all, by his very origins and age, Obama opens the door to a new part of the electorate--the young--and gives them an opportunity to do more than march, protest, sniff, and quaff. The very fact of his so-called "inexperience" is a plus. How many paybacks must Hilary make, and to whom, if she gets the nomination and runs for president? Gossip says that Richardson wanted to endorse Obama but the Clinton machine offered him his life to shut up and extreme payback if he didn't. Right, they called in a chit, but so will others do unto her. How is that new. Sounds like same/old, same/old. Which leads to my second objection. She "...will run the government from day one.....", not like Obama, unable to find papers, but like a general, I guess. So, she's going to be Secretary of State, Treasury, and Defense as well as Surgeon General, Attorney General, and head of the FBI? "Give us a break!", Every President in history has made it a point to surround himself with knowledgeable and efficient individuals who are judged by how well they implement new laws. If she thinks she can "run" the government, who will want to work for her? We see how running the government worked in the Health Coverage issue. She now dismisses that with a blithe, "Oh, we made so many mistakes!" [Hil, we didn't elect you President so why the first person plural?] And because of that the nation has suffered another eight years of health care nonsense! Had she emphasized inclusion in creating the concept, as she was advised to do, gotten off her ego-horse and not set up camp in the East Wing, she might have gotten somewhere. But she chose the Imperial approach and screwed it up. I think she and her the First Husband will continue in their usual vein. Which leads to my third objection to her as President. You appropriated Obama's whole concept of the kind of leadership he would offer if elected: unite the country around saving itself, instead of pursuing the imposition of an ideology. You started out running on experience alone---what "I" have done, what "I" will do--before Iowa. Then you saw the light: it was on the Obama train heading straight for you and you nimbly jumped on board claiming you had reserved a seat he was denying you. This makes me doubt your character. And character will out. I still believe you are a top-down kind of organizer, and a bad one at that. Which leads me to my fourth and final objection to a Clinton Presidency: Bill in the White House with time on his hands, an office with a lock on the door, and a zipper he can operate at will. When do the Bimbo Explosions begin to distract us? Please, VOTE OBAMA OR EDWARDS, not Clinton!

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.