Monday, March 12, 2007

Hillary-ous Comparison

[March 11, 2007 — NASHUA, N.H. - Hillary Clinton Speaking]

“He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic. A lot of people back then [1960] said, ‘America will never elect a Catholic as president,’ But those who gathered here almost a half century ago knew better. They believed America was bigger than that and Americans would give Sen. John F. Kennedy a fair shake, and the rest, as they say, is history.”

"...women are "the majority" of voters and are in the workforce in "record numbers," So when people tell me 'a woman can never be president,' I say, we'll never know unless we try."

There must be a lot of Kennedy people who are rolling their eyes over this. Teddy comes to mind. In any comparison between JFK and HRC, HRC is going to come up short, and I don't mean in height.

Hillary seems to be implying that women and some men will vote for her because she is a woman, as if that were her main attribute. I don't know anybody, although I'll wager there were some, who would have said that JFK should have been elected just because he was a Roman Catholic. He was elected partly because his father did everything in his power to pull whatever strings necessary to get him the nomination, partly because Chicago Mayor Daley and others rigged the election results, and partly because Richard Nixon's makeup was terrible. He was also elected in part because he was dynamic, and inspiring, and because people liked him and agreed with his politics. He promised to bring youth and vitality to the White House after decades of having old men occupy the Oval Office. His beautiful and cosmopolitan wife and two little children also brought a breath of fresh air, although these were less than ideal qualifications for the presidency.

I don't think the Clintons have youth and vitality going for them, and she is neither dynamic nor inspiring. And I imagine the White House windows were opened wide to let in fresh air after the Clintons left in 2000.

About the only thing that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy have in common is their political party. But Kennedy was hardly a Clinton democrat, especially not a Hillary democrat. Little did we know that history would show Jack Kennedy to be more "republican" than many republicans today.

One clear difference between her and JFK was in their views on national defense. Kennedy screwed up the Bay of Pigs fiasco but when push came to shove he stared down the Russians and made them remove the missiles from within easy striking distance of Florida. He didn't "dialog" Kruschev to death; he threatened the heck out of him. Hillary would have gone on a listening tour of Moscow and then invited Kruschev to "chat" a while, probably after making sure Chirac went along with it.


An afterthought: I don't know about you, but I can almost hear her saying,

"Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you."


Casey said...

Black, purple, male, female,Chinese, European, none of that should come into play. To vote for a person who is best qualified to lead our country that is what we need to look at.
Who will do justice for the people,
It reminds me of politics is about
We the people of the united states of America, in order .......
To vote to get a woman in, or ethnic background etc, does our country a mis justice, may the best person win.
God Bless America

Sloan Morganstern said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sloan Morganstern said...

That's right, Casey. But too many people don't do
that. They vote based on identity politics instead of genuine qualifications.