Clinton steps down as Secretary of State: will it be 'Hillary for America 2016'?

I watched an interesting documentary over Christmas that mapped the career and life of former President Bill Clinton. His early years as a charismatic but not so well known southerner, the flirt, the women and the many offices held and goals reached. What stood out to me was Hillary. I have never followed her closely but always kept my eye on her, standing always just off to the side. She was not apparently welcomed by Bill's team when she first came aboard the Clinton bus. Too opinionated, too northern, too educated. But on board she came, and from the footage she was the making of his later campaigns. She stood by him, gave him credibility where it was lacking and I think she was courageous for this. It wasn't naivety, and I don't think it was all pragmatism either.

 Clinton in 1992 on the campaign trail for her husband. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia, File)

Today John Kerry replaces Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, an Office she has held for four years. The articles, blogs and TV montages are already rolling to depict her years as a Public servant. The political wheels are also turning over a possible second Presidential run. Those wheels though are more spinning on the grass, chucking up mud, than they are burning rubber. Clinton refuses at this point to annouce any possibility of a candidacy, saying she is looking forward to the rest. The consensus seems to be she hasn't made up her mind and that much rests on her health, and of course age. Being in your 60s and a woman is a ghastly thing for the public to see apparently!

"Clinton leaves with a mixed record: She has garnered wide admiration around the world but has no major diplomatic achievements on par with those of other well-known secretaries of state, such as Henry Kissinger or George C. Marshall. Rand Corp.’s James Dobbins, a former ambassador and longtime troubleshooter for both Democratic and Republican administrations, said Clinton was denied big diplomatic breakthroughs but also leaves without “catastrophic failures.”

“She turned out, perhaps rather surprisingly given her reputation for sharp elbows, to be a very competent and even quite popular manager of a large, complex bureaucracy and a highly collegial player on a ‘team of rivals,’ ” Dobbins said." http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/what-is-clintons-legacy-at-state--and-her-future/2013/01/31/da204496-6b30-11e2-af53-7b2b2a7510a8_story.html 

Random poll for the day; if Clinton was to run in 2016 she has a chance of winning Texas! 50% of voters view her favourably, that cuts across Republicans and Democrats. (thanks to the Dallas News for that one.) She also leaves the Secretary of State Office with a 70% approval rating. She is liked by Republicans or at least tolerated and hated by some Democrats. But her Husband's support base and ability to fundraise can never been underestimated. When she ran for the New York Senate in 2000, it was the first time a First Lady had run for Public Office and the first time a woman had won New York. With her popularity at an all time high Clinton herself said in 2012, "There's a certain consistency to who I am and what I do, and I think people have finally said, 'Well, you know, I kinda get her now.'" ^{'At the pinnacle of her career' Rachel Combe, Elle.}   I'm not so sure Hillary, I've been reading for the last few hours now, including plenty of comments from the random blogosphere/newscasts and although people have opinions on you they don't seem so clear as to how they were formed.

The thing is and I'm sure I'm open to attack here I'm not overly concerned about her record. Well ok I'm ambivalent about it. I accept that there are those who have been disappointed by her inconsistency as New York Senator and many point the finger at her for the loss of American life in Benghazi. But ultimately I want to see a Female President. I want to taste that piece of history. I know the wrong one can do damage and potentially put us (women who like power) back a few years. Yes I'm thinking of Maggie (but that is another subject, which I'm also divided on). I believe that first and foremost we learn by example and I want my girls to grow up in a world where woman can lead. Lead with a Capital L. It might not be their Mummy ;) but she is a Mom, a wife, an educated, hard working, 'sharp elbowed', glasses wearing and yes still too big haired WOMAN. And that's it for me, that's where the buck stops.

As always thanks for reading, please I would love to hear your thoughts and disagreements :)

www.guardian.co.uk

Labour Leader hits the spot: EU Referendum and One Nation Politics

"Running scared from Ukip,
Giving in to his party,
Can't deliver for the country."

The biting words of opposition Leader Ed Milliband last week, as he harangued the Prime Minister over his decision to give in and hold a referendum on the UK's position in Europe. I have wanted to do a blog on Mr Milliband for a while but there never seems to be quite enough substance to any one thing he says. Which I imagine sums up how many might feel about him.

For example he gave a speech a couple of weeks ago to the Fabian Society where he said:

"Britain is in danger of having two nations divided between those who own their one homes and those who rent.

If we are going to build One Nation, people who rent their homes should have rights and protections as well.

That’s about rooting out the rogue landlords.

Stopping families being ripped off by letting agents.

And giving new security to families who rent.

So we will introduce a national register of landlords, to give greater powers for local authorities to root out and strike off rogue landlords.

We will end the confusing, inconsistent fees and charges in the private rented sector.

And we will seek to give greater security to families who rent and remove the barriers that stand in the way of longer term tenancies"
http://www.labour.org.uk/ed-miliband-speech-fabian-one-nation-labour-change

As a current long-term renter with no security and young children to worry about I actually felt like a Politician was speaking to me and perhaps speaking sense. Regulation of this market is desperately needed, prices should be fairer and I believe long-term lets are the only solution to the housing crisis.

However, 'one nation' was not really hitting the spot. It feels like just another hollow sound bite thought up in a marketing office somewhere far away from Liverpool, Edinburgh, Leeds and SNP Perthshire. Again I'm not saying I'm voting Yes in 2014 but it needs more than Ed repeating 'one nation' over and over for it to be true. We are divided, as he just said, by those who rent and those who own. By those who work and don't. By those who believe in God and don't. And now it seems by those who want a chance to say they don't like that pesky EU and all its laws and migrant workers and business.

Mr Milliband in many ways I do want us to be 'one nation' but I'm yet to understand how you want to make that happen. And cliched as it is we are more than a nation. We are the European Union, we are NATO, we are human. I have more in common sometimes with friends in the US, or with those I support working in Pakistan. Sometimes I want to protect the goat famer in Greece because I love his feta or the wine maker in France. This is our world, we interact every second across the internet, falling in love, bullying people, encouraging one another and learning all the time. We need laws, regualtions, and parliaments that understand this.

Which brings me back to the original quote and how I found myself in agreement with Ed and giving him another chance! Cameron is running scared from Ukip, but worse than that he is giving them power and legitimacy they don't deserve. If Hitler had never been imprisoned but just sent home he would never have recieved so much attention, noteriety or increased support. More than giving in to his party Cameron is also pulling a well worn magic trick. Sleight of hand, distraction, illusion call it what you will. But we are all looking one way, and he's pulling something out of the bag somewhere else. And in this way, yes David Cameron is failing the nation because I'm pretty sure it's not a nice fluffy rabbit.

Off a cliff? Or skipping down a hill?

It's the year 1999 and suddenly there is widespread panic that computers will not be able to cope with the numbers 2,0,0,0. Clocks, calendars, schedules, programme software, banks, wall street will just somehow implode (or that was my memory of it). Now why they didn't see this coming I'll never understand. But with all eyes on Sydney we waited for our digital world to collapse. It didn't. Computers being clever things clicked over to a new day and millennium quite effortlessly. It was a good night as I remember although my sparkly "2000" headband got lost :(

And so we have the 'fiscal cliff'. Plenty of time to predict and prevent and yet here comes the end of Year with panic, negotiations and dugged Politicians. My very simple understanding of the cliff is that a whole bunch of legislation including; the end of the Bush tax cut extensions, the beginning of ObamaCare and spending cuts to several key areas pertaining to the debt ceiling deal, were all coming together on a crash course to reduce the deficit by some $500 billion as the ball dropped on 2013. This reduction instead of being smiled upon was feared for its steep decline and the resulting recession and rise in unemployment. The percentage points that I've heard are not all that extreme, but of course add in a few clips of riots in Greece and the 'cliff' becomes much steeper.

I think what's interesting to me is why the last minute neogtiations? Why was this "messy, short-term deal" necessary? Well with all the Christmas and New Year festivities its easy to forget that we were deep in Election Politics only a few months ago. Gridlock was the Republican tool of choice, fighting the President at every turn in the belief he would soon be booted out. So a pre-emptive deal was off the table, but now more importantly my hope is that some Republicans at least want to get to work and represnt the districts that voted them in. ABC News' polls (sorry if that is a bad source I have 2 children and almost no internet) have 52% believe Obama did a good job with 45% in agreement with the deal. 51% disapproved of Boehner's role - Americans fed up perhaps of the delaying tatics of an unproductive House. Hope at last of future bi-partisanship and genuine progress?

Yet the cliff deal doesn't seem to achieve an awful lot. No immediate cuts for social security and medicare, and a 5 year extension on tax credits is a positive start but the fact that a threatened rise in taxes, however small and effecting relatively so few, is still seen as the bigger burden is surprising and frustrating. Why do taxes send such a chill down the US spine? For a nation made up of such generous individuals I find it strange that the general ethos is still against redistribution of wealth. Hmm.

I'm going to leave my comments on the ever huge defense budget and instead end with this. Obama brought ObamaCare safely through the election and has saved it again (yes ok CLASS was lost but I think was more using the situation to advantage rather than an actual loss - ??) he has taken points from Boehner and opened things up for the Senate to act instead of the House. What this all means I'm not sure but hopefully it'll be "politics as usual" instead of the stalemate that defined so much of Obama's first term.

N.B  - The quotes are from other blogs, articles etc I'm sorry I didn't keep a better note. Blame the 7 month old who keeps interrupting me :)

Still Hoping? Let's Hope So!

They all shouted

Yes We Can

Then started whispering

Yes He can.

 

Last night, Andrew Marr was able to successfully do what Channel 4's previous election build up 'The American Road Trip' really failed to do. That being, dig a little deeper into the 2008 Obama appeal, his apparent fall from grace and both his shortcomings and benefits as a politician. A balanced program that explained quite simply Obamacare, raising eyebrows at those who so violently opposed it - what a shame Marr wasn't on hand to help the Obama administration when the bill was being passed. You can find it here - unless you are overseas in which case I have no idea how these things work, sorry! hope you can get a hold of it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ntgsm/This_World_Obama_What_Happened_to_Hope/

 

The above quote was from a Chicago man who articulated really well a nagging thought of mine. It was "Yes WE can" to that whole change thing, right? It has always felt to me, that a nation stood with Obama and then suddenly dropped back behind him, whispering "Yes YOU can." Or maybe it was always more a question of what kind of change, what kind of hope. Change that costs? Change that might benefit someone else before me? Hope that drags you out of your comfort zone... hmm well then maybe not that kind of hope or that kind of change.

 

So its a tight race and tomorrow it will be about lawyers and counting machines. But is that any surprise? When Obama took office, the economy was in the worst shape it has probably ever been and Obama was still getting lost in the halls of the White House. I remember watching the inaugaration and listening mesmerised by the wonder of an actual orator, such a gifted public speaker and graceful leader and my heart sank. It was the wrong time. How could this be Obama's moment? No one would survive such a hideous recession. Btw this is the small comfort I take that Cameron, a man also destined to lead but for very different reasons, is in power now.

 

Yet, here he is still standing and I belive still hoping for change. Marr wanted to know if people have lost faith in him, especially those from his campaigning grassroots in Chicago. From the program it didn't seem like that had, but perhaps they feel there is little choice but to trust him knowing the opposition will have even deafer ears. I'm sure he must feel pretty far away from those campaigners and protestors, perhaps lonely in his West Wing office but I've no doubt he hasn't forgotten. For all that he hasn't managed to live up to the weighty expectations Obama does not strike me as a man whose identity is lost or his political compass broken. This is important because if you had read, watched or listened beyond the smile I think Obama's agenda has always been clear. I don't necessarily mean agenda in a negative way, simply to say that Obama's core is not as a centrist and those that voted for him made the mistake not Obama.

 

So my question is; Why elect Obama in the first place? When people feel lost, when all that they know is crumbling - as the capitalist banking system was in 2008, they need a Captain to sail their raft in the right direction. So the message of Hope was a popular one. I think what a lot of people misunderstood was the small print in Obama's message. For one thing Obama is not a 'socialist' in the sense so many Americans fling around, he would not be recognised in the USSR or communist China. So please read alittle, learn alittle before hurling back to the McCarthy days. But neither was the Change to only benefit those who were previously benefiting from the free market, and all its consumerism trappings.

 

Reading over this it strikes me that I sound pretty harsh against a nation that have over the last decade been shaken extremenly hard. I don't mean to attack or dismiss that real poverty and hardship many have faced. What I mean to say is that I believe that there is room within the American dream and the Obama administration for a USA that is more united than it is presently divided. I don't think the Hope agenda was ever about handouts without a hand up. Obama isn't against business, or religion or your civil rights. Isn't there room for health insurance for everyone? Can't you run your business successfully, even be 'rich' whilst not crippling your neighbour? I would love to see a second term, from a political scientist point of view this is a fascinating time and the possibilities for real change and policies that might take root are much more open in a second term than a first.

 

I'm sure Romney is a very successful businessman and for many is the option that makes sense, that is safe for them that feels you know, comfortable but please America be brave once more. Don't let this great mind and gifted man go down as a one term President.

 

Hey, if you disagree please tell me why or if you have predictions about tomorrow do share!

 

 

The Religious Vote

"Let people see our religious consistency on the issues, not our political hypocrisy at election time, by assigning ultimate biblical values to our different political choices."

Jim Wallis, Consistency, hypocrisy and the US presidential election, 2 Nov 2012.

 

I have been reflecting the last few days on what it means to have a religious viewpoint in Politics and of course specifically how Christians will be voting tomorrow. I have seen 2 'posters' being passed around on Facebook, both from Christian leaders but holding very different political positions. It's hard to not feel your religious values are being manipulated by those with the most to gain. I wanted to see what Jim Wallis, a respected Christian leader and political commentator had to say and after a quick google search found the article above. It is a good read and worth 5 minutes of your time - obviously after reading this!

Wallis says: "Many of us Christians are 'pro-life', but aren’t the nearly 20,000 children around the world who die every day of utterly preventable hunger and disease just as much a 'sanctity-of-life' issue as the approximately 3,000 abortions that occurred in our country today?" A sentiment that was the basis of one of those facebook posters. That being pro-life is surely not just a question of abortion and contraception, that is only birth. However, for many these are important issues and act as a compass for their value system. I can understand this, just like I can 'understand' their concerns over marriage etc (understand although perhaps not agree with). What Wallis is getting at though is that Jesus was about more than these 'moral/religious' issues that are so heavily played on in election season. He was about social justice, mercy and love for the poor, oppressed and lonely and he was also fervently concerned with these things 24/7, 360 days of the year. Does your faith determine your political ideology or vice versa? And which one if either motivates your daily living, your daily politics, your daily faith?

 

Wallis goes on to talk about Romney's following of the Mormon faith - something which has become a bit of an elephant in the room. I'm really glad he is willing to write about it and sensitively question whether there would have been such a theological shift (he uses the example of republican members and religious leaders removing negative stories and articles about Mormons from their websites etc) if the person concerned had been a Democrat. "Are our concerns really about religion and biblical values, or do they just reflect our ideological political preferences?"

 

I have been surprised that so many American Evangelicals have been willing to accept Romney's faith and that it hasn't been more of an issue in the campaign. In many ways a candidate's faith should not be a voting factor, what matters is how this faith affects their values and in turn their policy decisions. I wonder had Barack Obama, often labelled as a Muslim as well as that weird scandal about his previous minister, actually been a Muslim would he ever have been elected in the first place? Probably not, yet seemingly people can more closely identify with the values of a Mormon. I struggle with this and wonder to what extent Romney remains close to his Mormon traditions. Perhaps it would have little affect on his moral compass and Presidential style. In which case how was he chosen by the 'God is on our side' team?

 

Anyway before I get too controversial I will leave it with this: Wallis' article is about the too often witnessed hypocisy of the Christian Church, only emphasised during big elections. Whichever way you vote tomorrow or perhaps already have, or the way you wish you could, please be consistent with a worldview that stretches across all the issues and all areas of your life; privately, publicly and in those still moments alone with God lets all do our best to live truthfully. You can get that article here: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/17284