Where i stand:

This country needs more than pretty speeches

Janie Greenspun Gale, Sun guest columnist

Thu, Jan 17, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Click here

My sister, Janie Greenspun Gale, has long been a committed advocate for worthy causes and a devoted follower of politics. She has strong feelings about the Democratic Party in this election year, which I share with you below. -- Brian Greenspun

I’m a sucker for pretty speeches. I’ve fallen for them all my life.

I’m in love with beautiful words so much so I remember lying on my floor when I was a teenager, reading my big book of unabridged poetry, weeping at the beauty of the words of the 21st Psalm,

“The Lord is my shepherd,

I shall not want ...”

I followed Sen. Eugene McCarthy to the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention when I was 18. He was an extraordinary speaker and I believed with all my heart that the poetic phrases he used to talk about the peaceful world he imagined would end the war that was taking people I knew and destroying their lives in the jungles of Vietnam. I couldn’t yet vote, but I was going to make sure my voice was heard.

The anti-war coalition of the Democratic Party didn’t win, the peace platform we’d hoped would be adopted went down in defeat, and I was among those chased and tear-gassed in the park. My father was with me and he witnessed police turning on unarmed anti-war protestors in the streets of Chicago. He was shocked at the police state his country, which he’d fought for in World War II, had become.

I came home and sued the state of Nevada for the right to vote at 18. I was furious. The suit became the test case Richard Nixon needed so he could pursue giving 18-year-olds the right to vote.

The Democratic Party was so divided, the left-liberal wing had become so radicalized, that the moderate middle of the country had nowhere to go but Republican. Nixon had promised to end the war, but it dragged on seven more years.

By 1972 the Democrats had fallen to their most radical edge and put up an anti-war candidate, George McGovern, against Nixon and all his dirty tricks.

Massachusetts was the only state the Democrats won that year.

Nixon gave us Watergate and the Democrats were back. In 1976 we gave the country Jimmy Carter, a political outsider from Georgia who spoke of peace and honesty. In 1980 we lost the White House to another great speechmaker, Ronald Reagan. I even voted for him.

The Republicans were energized, their base was increasing, and instead of staying in the center of political discourse, the country shot off to the right.

President Clinton brought the country back to the center. His economic policies were sound and more people moved from poverty to prosperity. We had peace and respect in most of the world, except in our own country, where political discourse was getting nastier and nastier.

Then we got George W. Bush.

All my life I have been passionate about politics. I know what it means to be idealistic, but after years of political battles, I’ve developed a healthy dose of realism.

What I love most about the current election is that a major shift in politics has already occurred, a dramatic change I’ve dreamed about. And this change has brought with it millions of young people who are energized by the political process. For the first time in recent memory, the Democrats have put aside acrimony and put forth very credible, inspiring candidates for the presidency. It speaks volumes about the party.

We all want change. Our country has been weakened by Bush’s failed economic policies and an intractable war in Iraq at a time when the whole world needs a strong America.

We will be strong when our people are strong financially, in good health and well-educated. But we can’t lose sight that we have real enemies intent on destroying our way of life. It’s comforting to think that if we leave Iraq, they will stop the terrorism. But it’s not realistic.

I’m not listening to pretty speeches anymore, for I am no longer a political neophyte. Experience is a great teacher and it has taught me that the best governance is from the middle. This country has so many serious socially and culturally divisive issues that it takes a person of experience to maneuver through the political landscape, making all Americans a part of the many solutions we need.

George Bush has alienated two-thirds of the country with his ideologies. Sen. Barack Obama promises to bring us together, but Sen. Hillary Clinton knows how to do it.

That, for me, is the essence of this election. Who is the candidate with experience? Who will govern from the middle, yet has the vision to inspire us to do better?

Hillary Clinton is the person this country needs at this moment in time. We can ill afford to try someone untested in the political arena. Her very presence in the White House would signal true change, for never in our 221-year history have we elected a woman. Plus, she is battle-tested and still standing.

Even ultraconservative Republican Pat Buchanan says she can beat the Republicans and be a strong leader. That’s consensus-building right there!

We need to restore America to greatness. To do so it is crucial that we choose wisely in this election. We can’t fall for pretty speeches.

Discussion: 12 comments so far…

By PAnderson

1/17/08 at 6:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh, Please.

Three points:

1. The Clintons and MacAuliffe and Carville et al rightly or wrongly are the most polarizing group in U.S. politics prior to Bush the Younger. That in and of itself will lead to legislative gridlock.

2. Do your brother's hefty contributions to Ms. Clinton's warchest as an FOB (Friend of Bill) mean you will get free room and board in the Lincoln Room if Ms. Clinton is elected?

3. The title of you editiorial is really condescending to Mr. Obama who has done more to energize people to become involved in politics than your moribund "realism" as stated above could ever do.
By KidFromVegas

1/17/08 at 9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

LAWSUITS & SMEAR THE UNION: Typical Clinton...wake up Nevada!

We need a change, this is Obama's time, the Clintons are so last season. A new day calls for new leadership. The establishment had their chance, and the current day mess is because of their inability to draw the sides together and solve America's challenges. Hillary divides and Obama unites. Why has this process been turned into one big Nevada "pissing match?" Because the same Democratic party elite in NV that lost the state to Bush twice and Gibbons once, is desperate to keep the status quo. Change you can believe in...Obama!
By finkmo

1/17/08 at 10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

To suggest that Hillary Clinton is the great uniter we're looking for is disingenuous at best. That she is, without question, the single most polarizing figure in this campaign should be enough to repudiate that claim. I would urge all of Clinton's supporters to take off their myopic lenses and realize how truly despised their candidate is. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and my distaste for her is visceral. She is quite simply too unpopular to win a general election. Should she win, however, how much do you think will get done in Washington over the next few years? Every Republican in Congress will base their re-election campaigns on their opposition to anything Clinton proposes. She is that despised by their consituencies. Not only will she lose the election, she'll lose congressional seats as well. Conservatives will get off their deathbed to vote against this woman. Come on Nevada, aren't we smarter than this? Clinton's nomination would be a mistake;her election would be a disaster.
By ObamaTruth

1/17/08 at 12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

The last time we had a 2-term democratic presidency... it was a Clinton... Last time we had a succeeding middle class... Last time we had a budget surplus ..it was with a Clinton... Last time we had peace.. was with a Clinton... I don't know about you, But I'm pretty comfortable and proud of that legacy. To listen to The Obama.. we should go back to the legacy of Ronald Reagan. I don't think so!
By finkmo

1/17/08 at 1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

The last time the nation responded to years of scandal and divisiveness by putting an absolute moron in office...after 8 years of Clinton. Last time Congress gave this same moron free liscense to invade a coutry unnecessarily...when Clinton voted for it. This war ended up costing trillions of dollars, costing thousands of lives, ballooning our national debt, weakening our dollar, driving up interest rates, etc. And YOUR candidate voted for it! So you prefer the candidate who promises to clean up the mess she helped make to the one who had good enough judement to realize it was a mistake from the onset. And I'm pretty sure the middle class hasn't been struggling during the entire Bush presidency. Ever notice that we hear all about the "plight" of the middle class every 4 years or so? I'm all for universal health coverage but many problems of the middle class are grossly overstated during these elections. I'm much more interested in restoring America's standing in the world and giving America a leader that can inspire us to better ourselves and our nation. What we need is good judgement and uniting leadership. What we need is Barack Obama.
By ObamaTruth

1/17/08 at 3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

It would be one thing if Obama had a record to run on... he doesn't. His record as an Illinois state legislator is filled with "Present" votes. His less than 3 years in the US Senate has been undistishable. His run for the presidency is about his ego, not about change. The Obamists love to tell us how we need Obama.. as though he is some Messiah.. and he will solve all of our problems. HOw? By giving vague speeches? What gets change is action.. not smiles and words. Now Obama is comparing himself to Ronald Reagan.. But Ronald Reagan was the chief executive of the largest state. Obama has zero management, administrative experience. But he is putting himself out there as the most qualified person to be the leader of the free-world?? Heck, we might as well nominate Oprah for President.. at least she has more management experience than Obama.. leading a multi-billion dollar company. You put Obama, with his skeleton resume, up against any of the leading Republicans, and he will lose in a landslide. Hillary has been fully vetted, and has weathered the storm..but there are serious questions about Obama's background, other than his lack of experience and drug use (I personally couldn't care less if he used cocaine). The GOP attack machine will sieze on every aspect of Obama's past and every innuendo. The Clintons know how to stand up and fight against the GOP attack machine. Obama would be made mincemeat by the GOP. It's not time to gamble on an intern.. but on a team that has proven it can beat The Republicans... and a team that has proven it can put America back on track. I find it very interesting how the Obamists like to resort to talking points from Rush Limbaugh and other members of the GOP attack machine to bash The Clintons.. it really makes you wonder.
By maria1234

1/17/08 at 5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

I really wanted Hillary until it became apparent that she truly was not about change. She's just been playing the same old dirty tricks used by Bush and Rove to tear down Obama. Causing tension between whites and blacks and latinos. That's so wrong. Obama is an inspiring candidate, he's honest and he has 11 years as a state senator in the tough state of Chicago. Bill Clinton calling him a fairy tale is wrong too. He knows that as an ex President he has a lot of influence. He should stay out of it like Bush's father did. Hillary isn't playing fair and she won't have my vote on Saturday. Obama will.
By jenreno

1/17/08 at 6:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Janie,

Thank you for an excellent article. I never understand why people do not pay attention to Hillary's behavior over the years (instead of hair or scandals). She is a quinticental wasp hardworking american. Hillary won my vote her first year as a senator. Instead of riding the coat tails of her role as first lady, she put her head down, kept her mouth shut, and was considered one of the "hardest working freshman senators" that year. She has a 60% approval rating in New York and rural conservatives are big supporters because of her moderate pragmatism. Right wing republicans were in media and new print discussing how she had earned their respect through her intelligence and hard work. They were clearly impressed and taken aback by her quiet substance.

I hope Obama is for real, I just doubt it. Can you imagine the arrogance to run for president during a war with his experience. Makes me think his charm is the biggest tool in his belt, and he has bet America's future on it.

Realism is where life and politics really happens, thanks for your article. Even if people vote for other candidates, I hope it gets some readers to reconsider their interest in Obama.
By HH123

1/17/08 at 9:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

I think Obama, unlike his overzealous supporters, is a visionary with good judgement. He wants to unite the country. Maybe he is genuine about it. However, I don't think he can do it. The master of negative Campaigns, Carl Rove, already labeled him as more liberal than Clinton. If he is nominated, I can garauntee that he will be attacked like John Kerry and Clintons by the Conservatives. No Conservative will vote for (in the general election) or cooperate with a black liberal. His recent speech about Ronald Reagan also turned me off. Reagan, though a Conservative, was a good President. Obama's admiration to him is OK. The problem is his intention. He is trying to woo the Independents and Republicans to vote for him in the Primaries. Everybody is saying that Clinton is calculated. The same thing can be said for Obama.

BTW, the lawsuit was a shame. The Clinton Camp should apologize for it.
By finkmo

1/17/08 at 10:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Of course the Clintons know how to stand up to the "Republican attack machine";they wrote the playbook. And enough with this "fully vetted" nonsense. You act like her and Bill were cleared of all wrongdoing. Her husband was impeached and Whitewater remains a talking point of the right to this day. Do you understand the magnitude of those scandals and how much money they cost taxpayers? The Republicans have been planning and hoping to face Hillary Clinton for the last couple of years, just waiting to peel back the scabs of the late 90s. They know she can unite their party like no other The only people who consistently support her in large numbers are older white registered Democrats, the majority of whom are women. For those of you lacking a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics and demographics, that's not enough to win in November. I haven't met one single person, from work, family, or friends, who plans to vote for her. I have, however, met Republicans dying to vote against her, Independents hoping McCain's available should she win the nomination, and several Democrats who aren't sure if they'll just abstain from voting or actually vote GOP. She can't win folks. And once again, how much would she get done if she did? All else being said, can someone please explain to me why our coutry has become an oligarchy monopolized by two weird families?
By slbk

1/18/08 at 7:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Isn't it interesting that Obama always has to compare himself to someone else, with no great humility, I might add, MLK, Lincoln, Jefferson, Mandela, and even Moses (yes THE Moses) Why does he do this? Because he has no record to stand on himself.

Clinton only needs her own record and experience.

Shouldn't that decide people's votes right there.

What I would like to say to obama's supporters who say, "He's like MLK" "or He's like Thomas Jefferson", "or He's like Lincloln, or Nelson Mandela" is this:

HILLARY CLINTON IS LIKE HILLARY CLINTON!

Magic Johnson said yesterday, "We don't need someone who preaches dreams. We needs someone who preaches solutions!"

Amen to that!
By finkmo

1/18/08 at 12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

What record and what experience? And being somebody's wife doesn't count. Would you want your surgeon's wife operating on you? She has not even 8 years of legislative experience and no executive experience. If she really did play a role in Bubba's presidency let's see the records...oh yeah, they won't release them. I'll be the first to admit my guy doesn't have a great amount of experience, but if you're going to base your vote solely on that measure, she better have a couple of decades under her belt. As to her record...well, what is it? What great feats has she accomplished? Every Clinton supporter sounds like a parrot. Obama's supporters will go into varied details explaining why he is their choice. With Clinton it's "35 years of experience" or "Gosh, weren't the 90s great!" You know what kind of experience both the Clintons DO have? Being mired in scandal and dirty politics. One more thing;when you're supporting someone who has exercised poor judgement, you probably shouldn't quote Magic Johnson to substantiate your position. Please Nevada, no more Clintons!