What's Missing in Politics?

No doubt those who support Hillary Rodham Clinton view anyone who does not, or worse yet publishes their rejection of her on a blog (hint,hint), as part of a right wing conspiracy, vast or not, or they are fully aware of her past, her record and that of her husband, former President William Jefferson Clinton, and are willing to ignore the ugly facts and support the Clintons for reasons unknown but suspected. To help the liberal among us understand the author of this post and avoid some mistaken assumptions, a little background may be useful providing it is not ignored. I claim to be poiltically independent but you of course can draw your own conclusions even if they are incorrect. This first fact may lend support to the notion that if you are in your twenties and not liberal you have no heart and if you are in your forties and not conservative you have no brain. Not a verbatim quote and credited to Winston Churchill but you get the point, right? I did not vote for Richard Nixon in 1972 and could not in 1968. I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. I would have voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 but that was the year of calling an election before many people had a chance to vote and my protest vote was cast for Jimmy Carter against my personal criteria. Even after reviewing the data to jog my memory, I can honestly say I don't remember who I voted for in 1984. I voted for George HW Bush in 1988, Perot in 1992 and no major party candidate since. You may criticize the 'other party' votes as a waste or by default helping one of the majors. But principle determines the responsibility to vote and conscience did not allow selecting from either major political party. In recent years I am proud to say I did not vote for a Clinton. While the current President Bush has done things that annoy me or worse there are some things I respect. As his approval rating witnessed most Americans were quite satisfied of his handling of matters after the terrorist attacks in 2001. The following year is a toss up and after that it has been a bumpy road to say the least. Call him a cowboy if you want but whatever it is he has rarely deviated from his positions and is not deterred by polls or ratings. The last time he made me nuts was last summer and the amnesty thing. Enough about Gee Dubya this is getting too long. If you fell asleep during that the important point I did not vote for Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. They were both big question marks for the initial elections and quetions were not erased in each one's 2nd term bid. Insult the 'other party' vote I employed but I have no regrets. To the current day then, there were two debates this week. In the Democratic party debate last night was the first time I was able to say something positive about the left since I don't remember when. Both Senator Biden and Senator Dodd responded to direct questions and gave especially good answers. For Biden, it was answering to the part of his reputation that he may speak badly about people or issues involving minorities. He pointed out what got him into politics and the response of minorities in his state electing him with 95% of their voting demographic. A claim that those who know him understand and accept his positions on this. Senator Obama supported Biden and his record on minority issues. Senator Dodd was asked about his father's 1967 censure related to campaign funds and how that affected his choice for public office. The part of the answer supporting his career choice echoed a sentiment that while lawyers and doctors can only help a limited number of clients, in public office one can help millions of people. Both responses were perhaps the most eloquent of the campaign season on either side of the poiltical fence. This comment is only tempered by the fact that this was a debate and this is a campaign so things aren't always what they seem. The statements of Biden and Dodd and the accompanying gesture by Obama were highlights that point to what is missing in politics. Is it that politics viewed by younger, more idealistic and vulnerable minds recollect in later years that there once was a time when those in or seeking election to public office were genuine and good for the country? Is it in those later years that the wisdom of experiencing a long history of broken campaign promises or simply failures in office or worse that we settle for what is available and our reluctance to engage the process honestly and effectively in sufficient numbers fails to produce quality leadership and results in public office? The current presidential campaign has but one candidate who once lived in the White House. Well, two if you are counting spouses. And before the final comments in this post are offered, a reference to an opinion piece is worth presenting in support of other similar complaints about this one candidate. Yes, the author of the piece definitely can demonstrate a distinct leaning to the right. But that does not automatically dismiss the value of the opinion nor the points about record that are relevant.

Revisit the Clinton Record? Wed Dec 12, 3:00 AM ET Brent Bozell III How easy it would be to make a list of all the things the press could do to clear the cobwebs with thorough investigations (as opposed to the infrequent and incomplete spurt of a few negative stories). Reporters could draw up a quick list of "old news" about Hillary Clinton's record of public malfeasance that Bill knows full well have never been resolved: 1. Hillary ordering around the White House staff to fire seven workers in the White House Travel Office for financial mismanagement, with Billy Dale accused of embezzlement. Hillary then lied to a grand jury about how she was not really involved in the firing scheme, even though staffers were writing there would be "hell to pay" if they didn't do Hillary's bidding. Billy Dale's life was ruined. Two years later, it took a jury two hours to acquit him of all charges. Why did she do that? What would voters think, Mr. President?

That was the first in a list of 'old' HRC business that is one example of what the media and certainly Clinton supporters regularly ignore. If you object to reviewing the Clinton record then you refuse to 'vet' this candidate to make an informed decision at the polls. Or you admit you are willing to ignore any and all facts about this candidate that indicate she should be rejected. The most recent example of Hillary Rodham Clinton's tendency to shield her past is not allowing public view of her record as First Lady until AFTER the 2008 election. There is a great deal more in her record that reasonable people will view as sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. For those who currently support Hillary Rodham Clinton for President a reminder from a voter who has selected candidates on both sides over the years. While you may not be able to see your way clear to vote for a Republican candidate, you have at least two other choices on the Democratic side who have a chance to win. Then there is always what amounts to a protest vote. Point is, you have other options to support your views. Choosing a candidate that has a track record like Clinton suggests your reasons for support will not be honored. Think about that. Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com