Make no mistake, big fan of Bobby Kennedy here, but in his most recent Huffington post, "Hillary Haters and the Roosevelts,"in which he endorses Hillary Clinton, Kennedy appears to suggest that, although Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were disliked prior to his election, that was soon to change. Indeed, inspired leadership requires conviction, not necessarily of the voters, but of those who want to win votes. Moreover, there is also an intriguing analogy drawn between the Clintons and the Roosevelts which falls flat when one takes a closer look.
Principally, a few compelling questions emerge:
1) Is Bobby implying that Hillary is like FDR, or
Eleanor? Clearly, it's not FDR, but if it is Eleanor, then it must be
remembered that Mrs. Roosevelt never ran for office nor would she.
2) There's the proverbial "two for the price of one" argument, namely,
that by electing Hillary we'll get another 4 to 8 years of Bill. The
underlying presumption here is that Bill and Hillary agree on most
important issues which requires a huge leap of faith. I suspect, like
most couples, the Clintons disagree on a few notable issues like war,
and the distribution of wealth.
3) the coup de grace assertion that Mme. Clinton would like to work for
the little guy, divest corporations of power and share the wealth is
belied by the fact that she boasts of standing up to the HMOs, and
pharmaceutical companies, on the one hand, and puts her other hand in
their pocket.
What's more, when Hillary said, in last night's debate, that she wants
to make health care "affordable for Americans," she demonstrates that
she still doesn't get that, for many of us who are uninsured, having to
pay anything for a doctor's visit is too much inasmuch as most who are
uninsured often have to choose between filling their refrigerators or
their prescriptions.
Last but not least, with FDR, one sensed heartfelt desire for economic
justice, as well as an unflagging drive to create jobs. One doesn't get
that sense with Mrs. Clinton. Indeed, when talking about most issues,
Hillary is about as passionate as your garden variety oncologist. When
discussing the fact that wealth is in the hands of the upper one
percentile, and how she's going to change that, we need to hear passion
instead of what what sounds like campaign rhetoric. You will recall
that when President Kennedy spoke about segregation, and civil rights,
it rang true, and never sounded like a scripted pitch for the
presidency. We expect nothing less from any candidate.
If "Hillary Haters and the Roosevelt's" argument is that running for
office isn't a popularity contest, I couldn't agree more. Indeed, this
country could do a whole lot worse than having Hillary Clinton as its
commander-in-chief. We could have a president who thinks AIDS patients
should be quarantined, one who wants to build big fences around the
border, reverse legislation banning handguns in our nation's capital,
or turn a woman's right to choose over to the states to decide instead.
But, we need to hear Hillary speak to these issues, as well as to any
so-called pre-emptive military strike against Iran. Governing by
inference hasn't worked for the past seven years, and it's guaranteed
not to work for seven more.
As Shakespeare once said, "Some are born great, some achieve greatness,
and some have greatness thrust upon them." One would hope that, if she
should find greatness thrust upon her, and that she is the fortunate
recipient of keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Mrs. Clinton would show
the same unabated appetite for human rights, economic justice, and
statesmanship as Franklin Roosevelt showed, as well as the humility,
and unpretentiousness of his spouse.
Yes, inspired leadership requires conviction on the part of the
leaders, too. And, whether one is electable or not isn't a mere matter
of strategy, but credibililty. Why replace one president we don't
believe with another. Those who speak truth to power speak from the
heart. Everything else is just party talk.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
