I know that most people at Duke don't like reading political columns. But at this point, I think one is due, so humor me for a few minutes.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans think, if the latest Associated Press poll is to be believed, that the direction of the country must change. According to similar polls, for many that means voting for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in 2008.
At universities across the country, like at this one, Obama is the overwhelming choice. He talks about change and hoping for a better tomorrow. He is young, which is novel and appealing to other young people like us. And his speeches aren't boring, which is a plus. But given the choices we have to make about how America needs to change, I don't think he's the first choice among the available candidates. Instead, I wholeheartedly support Hillary Clinton.
I want to set aside candidates' rhetoric for a moment, because I think using that as a motive to support a candidate is misguided. For instance, who would you suppose said this: "Our nation must rise above a house divided. Americans share hopes and goals and values far more important than any political disagreements.... Our votes may differ, but not our hopes. I know America wants reconciliation and unity. I know Americans want progress. And we must seize this moment and deliver."
It was President George W. Bush, responding to Vice President Al Gore's concession speech in December of 2000. Politicians, especially those who have been in the game for years-as Obama and the other candidates have-know that people always like to hear about change, unity and hope for the future. This rhetoric almost never amounts to much.
I think what we need to see are firm, effective plans to move this country forward. There are three major issues facing this country, as I see it, that the candidates differ on. The balance tips in favor of Clinton time after time.
We need a plan that will reduce health-care costs and expand health-insurance coverage. Paul Krugman wrote an incisive piece about this in The New York Times Feb. 4, citing research by MIT health-care economist Jonathan Gruber, who found that a health-care plan resembling Hillary Clinton's would cover twice as many uninsured people as Barack Obama's at nearly half the cost per capita. Clinton's plan is the best out there. It balances the societal good of universal health care with the need for market competition and marks her as the most forward-looking candidate on the issue.
On Iraq, there are no perceptible differences that I can see between Clinton and Obama. Both have proposed withdrawing one to two brigades a month from Iraq until almost all troops are out, while leaving in place special operations troops for counter-terrorism operations, as well as guards for the U.S. embassy. In the Senate, Clinton and Obama have essentially identical voting records on Iraq withdrawal deadlines and funding bills, except that in 2007 Obama seems to have missed one more vote on Iraq than Clinton did.
In foreign affairs there is a key difference, which is Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of countries such as Iran, Venezuela and Cuba "without preconditions." Clinton says the pledge is "irresponsible and frankly naive."
She's right. A meeting without preconditions would help legitimize international pariahs like Myanmar or North Korea while doing little to solve fundamental policy disputes. For instance, Obama has said that military strikes aren't off the table in dealing with Iran's nuclear program, and he has proposed increasing our Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 men. It's hard to see the president of Iran taking his message of conciliation too seriously.
Most people can agree that this is a historic election. Primarily, it showcases the first serious female and African-American presidential candidates. It will also be one of the tipping points that define politics for years. America will either escape the now-bankrupt ideas of George W. Bush conservatism or continue aimlessly adhering to them. The mistakes of the Bush administration will either become an aberration or be enshrined as business as usual.
I feel hopeful that we have in Sen. Clinton a candidate with plans that can move our debate and policy forward. Having a competent president with a serious vision for improving the country will be a change that I can believe in.
Frank Holleman is a Trinity junior. His column runs every other Monday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.