The Bottom Line is Leadership.....Obama vs. Clinton

It is easy to get side tracked by these peripheral issues; Revotes in FL & MI, Ferraro's Controversial Remarks, Former Pastor's Sermons, etc. It sells newspapers, magazines, and soap on TV. We, Americans have a history to be proud of, but is that all we have? If we can set aside our racial and sexist biases, take off those blinders that we have lived with too long, and to move America forward instead of anchored in our old ways of anger, misunderstanding, and divisiveness, I believe our best days are ahead of us, not behind us. I think in the end if most people sit down and make a sound decision based on the facts, this is what they will come up with:

The Hillary Clinton campaign has said that because she has more experience in Washington, D.C. over Barack, she or even McCain would make a better President and Commander-In-Chief. "Who would you want to answer that 3 am phone call?" I'm going to make a list for each democratic candidate. I'm honoring Hillary's recent complaint with the news media, so I'm starting with Barack.

Here are Barack's leadership credits:

• In the most important decision that any lawmaker had to make in many years, Barack spoke out against the decision to go to war in Iraq while many lawmakers were about to make one of the biggest mistakes in foreign policy. The Clinton folk like to say that he couldn't vote to authorize that war. He was an Illinois state senator. What makes their argument hollow, is that he was starting his run for U.S. Senator and his Republican opponent and the country's wind were taking us to war. He made a speech before anti-war protesters on October 2, 2002. He said "I don't oppose war in all circumstances... but what I do oppose is a dumb war." "What I am opposed to is a rash war." The Iraq war is a 'dumb' and 'rash' war and he gave the reasons why we are stuck there today; "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda." Now that is true courage and perception, and the right decision. I am a Vietnam era veteran and I know why leadership at the top military position is so important. We(Vietnam War veterans) took the oath to protect the Constitution and follow the lawful orders of the Commander-In-Chief. We kept that oath and in the end had to accept defeat. That is what happens when you have the wrong leader to take you to war.
  
• Barack spoke out at the beginning of this Presidential campaign that if he was Commander-In-Chief, and if he had good actionable intelligence, he would take out Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan if Pakistan failed to act. He was immediately criticized by Clinton and others for his bold approach. Well, several weeks after Mr. Obama's statement, we did take out an Al-Qaeda target in Pakistan. Do you think the President was listening?


• Barack recently stated that his relationship with Tony Rezco was a bad decision. Is that a minus for leadership? Initially, I would say yes, we are certainly hearing alot of negative rhetoric from the Clinton camp. But after that decision, he helped pass the state of Illinois' first major ethics reform bill in 25 years, and he helped lead the fight in the U.S. Senate for ethics and lobbying reform and a bill was signed into law. He has run his Presidential campaign from small donations and many contributors. Even the other side has complimented his grass roots effort at raising money. Sometimes we make mistakes, and it is important to realize them, but what you do to correct them is more important. How you bounce back. No one died from this mistake. This should be a plus plus.


• The ability to speak plainly and with one voice. No one disputes Barack is a great orator, and when other voices in his campaign echoed words of divisiveness or of confusion, he was quick to respond.


• When lesser campaigns face elimination, they resort to negative campaigning. Barack started hugely behind two good opponents, but he never resorted to mud slinging. "Just the facts, Mam" appeared to be his campaign slogan.


• Many argue that experience should be how we chose Presidents. We all know that is the first question they ask you when you go for a job interview. There is no one running for re-election, so we don't have that answer. Let's look at experience by looking at some former presidents. John F. Kennedy was too young, therefore too inexperienced and too catholic, Abraham Lincoln had an unnoteworthy Congressional record, and George Washington had just his rank of general. Many say they were among our greatest presidents.


• The Obama campaign has remained above the fray of 'politics as usual' by a leader that leads by example, not hyprocrisy.

Now its Mrs. Clinton's turn:

• She was Senator of New York when that bill titled: "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " came before her to vote on. She voted 'Aye'. She later explained that she was voting for inspectors or diplomacy for Iraq. She never read the National Intelligence Estimate(NIE) and she had stated on the Senate floor that Hussein had given comfort to Al-Qaeda. http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html To sum it up, she thought she was voting for diplomacy, never read a very important government report that revealed contradictory information given by the administration, and thought Al Qaeda was or had been in Iraq. Is this the kind of leader you want answering the call?
  
• She voted 'Aye' to an amendment that calls on the U.S. State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization in Iran. This was being pushed by the Republicans in the Senate. It was a non-binding resolution, but many Democrats thought it was saber rattling which may give the Bush administration reason to go to war with Iran. They had been talking of bombing Iran. I think this was another ploy to feel out the sentiment of the Senate for war with Iran. I believe this would have been a great opportunity for Clinton to resolve her bad decision to go to war with Iraq. She chose to make a similar mistake. There is an old 'Texas saying' "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
  
• When her campaign for President appeared doomed, she resorted to negative campaigning. No longer depending on her campaign platform issues to sway the voters, she looked for some tools that Karl Rove has used; politics of fear, twisting statements, and guilt by association. The red phone ad, the confused Canadian memo about NAFTA, and the indictment of Tony Rezco. Karl Rove is smiling somewhere.
  
• Senator Clinton has been running on her 8 years of foreign policy experience as First Lady in the Whitehouse, but when asked what she did to affect foreign policy, she came up with some pretty good whoppers. The most memorable one is her 1996 Bosnia trip which she said that she had to dodge snipper fire. She told this story 3 times, before someone decided to do some fact checking. Unfortuneately for Hillary that trip was video taped. There was no running to cars, ducking snipper fire, or running for cover as she stated. She wasn't even wearing a flack vest. In fact her daughter Chelsea was there and they had a meeting on the flight line where an eight year old girl presented her with a letter and a hug. Then she met with some high schoolers. All this outside and in the open. I saw no panic of any kind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4 After the video tape surfaced, Clinton said she was mistaken. A good leader must have creditablity. Clinton appears to have none. Even more troubling about this incident, Chelsea Clinton had backed her story.

• Hillary and Bill are actively campaigning for her Presidency, but when looking at them together I am reminded of all that went wrong in Bill's presidency not just those better economic times that we all desperately want to return; Loss of Many Good American Jobs From NAFTA, A Failed Health Care Plan, A Painful Impeachment Trial, Monica, Paula, Gennifer, and That Finger Wagging Statement "I didn't have sex with that woman". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs&feature=related I'm not sure America wants to return to that time.
  
• Finally, Hillary was actually given a formal task by President Bill Clinton. She chaired the "Task Force on National Health Care Reform" in 1993. By 1994, it was dead, it never even came to a vote in a Democrat dominated Congress. Many fingers point at Hillary for its defeat. She had secret meetings with the health care companies. She wouldn't listen to leaders in the Democratic congress. She couldn't even bring members of her own party together to support her. Good leaders listen and bring people together, not divide them.

I put a lot of time into looking at these two candidates. I looked at John Edwards, too before his demise. Gender doesn't matter, race doesn't matter, or just talk doesn't matter. I hope this may help you make a decision. I don't pick leaders lightly and you shouldn't either.
Sincerely,
Gary Lee Former Air Force Sgt.