I've Made A Huge Mistake

I didn't want a woman to be president. I wanted to be president! - Amy Poehler as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dear Secretary Clinton,

I am writing to express my deepest apologies. In 2008, I supported then-Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president. As you well know, that meant I did not support you - the other strong candidate in the race. Considering the state of our government, I realize now that was a big mistake.

When I supported Barack Obama for president, I did so because he seemed to promise all the things I wanted a presidential candidate to promise. He seemed slightly more liberal generally - including on foreign policy. But most importantly, he promised a fresh start and a move away from the divisive politics of the Baby Boomers. He said we could disagree without being disagreeable.

I see now how naive it was to believe all of that. First, he wasn't nearly as liberal as he suggested he was. Although at times he also pretended to be very moderate, which is why some people called him a Rorschach test - people saw what they wanted to in him.

But secondly and more importantly, I realize now that being disagreeable is actually necessary sometimes. See, President Obama thinks that if he just acts reasonable and in good faith, the other party will, too. But it doesn't work that way. The other party is going to do whatever it takes to get the most it can for its agenda.

To be clear, I am under no illusion that you would necessarily have been more liberal than the President. At times I imagine you would have had similar economic policies as you might have hired similar people. Although at other times the President seems to be acting like a Reagan Democrat - which is actually not a Democrat at all - which would put you to the left of him.

But what is clear is that his lack of experience is translating into his being a poor negotiator. By refusing to stand up for liberal values, he is starting in the middle and having to move very far to the right. I believe that your strength and ability to disagree and to be disagreeable when necessary, as well as your greater experience, would have made you much more capable of dealing with the Republicans at this time.

Before I sign off, I do want to let myself off the hook a little bit. I must admit that you didn't campaign very well. You made a couple blunders (LBJ / MLK and the comment about white voters in Pennsylvania) and then refused to back down afterward. But I should have looked past that and realized experience is an important part of the job and while your experience wasn't overwhelming, it was more than Barack Obama's experience. And more importantly, I should have realized that you would have been a formidable negotiator and would have defended our values.

I'm sure this is little consolation to you now. But wrongs need to be admitted, and so I am admitting that I was wrong (notice I avoid the passive voice). I wish you the best in the future, and if you need my vote at any time (2012?), you'll have it.

Sincerely,
Brendan Cheney

Last Point About Hillary

Another old post that I never published. Interesting considering what we know now - that Clinton was very close to refusing the position.

I don't want to spend too much time on this, but Thomas Friedman did make an interesting point about whether or not to choose Hillary. Basically he said the Secretary of State is only effective when foreign leaders believe they are talking to the President through the Secretary of State. In this position, seemingly more so than other cabinet positions, those dealing with the secretary of state need to know that Obama trusts Hillary and that Hillary supports Obama's policy positions.

I am not writing Hillary off - she has proven time and again that she can mold her personality to fit whatever role she finds herself. This is what has made her effective as First Lady, Senator, and presidential candidate (she might not have won, but I still think she ran a good campaign).

This gets to the Team of Rivals issue. It seems that a lot of people have read Doris Kearns Goodwin's book and think Obama should mimic Lincoln and bring rivals into his cabinet. Now there will always be contrarians who don't really get the point*. It isn't whether a president can bring in differing view points while maintaining a perfectly functioning cabinet. Instead the issue is whether the president (Obama) will be better able to control rivals (ie people within his party who might try to thwart his plans due to ego or real differences) by keeping them in his cabinet and whether he can also use their talent effectively in their positions. In Lincoln's case, I would argue that he did effectively deal with the personalities in his cabinet - Chase especially - and also relied heavily on the talented Seward and Stanton.

The biggest lesson though is where to put which rivals. Stanton and Seward were loyal and headed the two most important positions during the Civil War: the State Department and War Department, respectively. The point I am trying to make is that if you want to bring Hillary in to try to keep her close and manage her, it might be better to try that with another post. Only if Obama thinks they can truly work together should be give her State Department.


*Note: The author of this article misrepresents the Emancipation Proclamation as being a fait accompli when Lincoln brought it to his cabinet. Whether to issue it was already decided by Lincoln. But Seward was able to convince him to wait until after a Union victory before issuing it so that it was issued from a position of strength. Lincoln heeded the advice and issued it following the victory at Antietam.

Hillary is Back

Remember when Hillary was getting as much news as Obama? And there was all the talk about whether she would be Obama's VP and if not whether she would campaign for him? Then in a few weeks, it didn't seem to matter. The country easily made the transition from Obama v. Hillary to Obama v. McCain.

Well, now Hillary is back in the news and apparently she is the front-runner for Secretary of State. When I first heard this, I was torn. I felt she had exaggerated her foreign policy experience during the campaign and so I wondered what made her qualified to head the State Department. At the same time, even though I think she is incredibly smart, I think this would be a better position than Supreme Court Justice.

As for the other contenders - I am surprised no one is mentioning Bill Richardson anymore. Maybe Timothy Noah convinced everyone else that it would be a bad choice. And I agree with Gail Collins that John Kerry would not be a very good choice. Frankly, I'm not sure what Kerry would be good for, except to stay on in the Senate. And nobody seems to be mentioning Edwards anymore - all because of an affair.

I think though that Hillary would be a good choice. Her role as first lady did include much time traveling as a dignitary of the US, which would be a large part of her role as Secretary of State. Where I think she exaggerated her experience was her level of involvement in decision-making. Here she would get that chance. The only worry is whether Obama could control her. I would like to think that in this role, it would be easier than if she had been VP.

Race in the Primaries

Hillary has recently been describing how Obama lacks support among working class white voters. Without that support, he might not win the nomination, or so the argument goes. I admit that this argument does scare me a bit. What is even more troubling are the polls that say that 25 percent of the voters in West Virginia said race was a factor - and 75 percent of those supported Hillary. Apparently Kentucky was much the same.

While Hillary along with many commentators have been suggesting that sexism has been worse than racism on the campaign trail (considering the comments that have been yelled at Hillary), there seem to be many voters actually making their decision based on racism.

What really bothers me about all this though is that Hillary doesn't seem at all concerned that there might be people supporting her out of racism. Actually, she is concerned that Obama might not be able to win, but not concerned that there is racism. For a while I was thinking that the classy thing for her to do would be to stand up and say, "Any voters supporting me because you won't vote for a black man, stay home. I mean it, if there is any racism in your heart, I don't want your vote."

The truth is, I feel even more strongly about this now. I don't see it as the classy thing to do (which I wouldn't expect from Hillary), but as the moral thing to do. Both she and McCain need to say that they don't want the votes of racists. Period. Instead, Hillary is doing the opposite. She is using the working class white - possibly racist - voters in Appalachia (because apparently this is a regional problem instead of that affects all whites of a certain income level) to further her argument that she is the better nominee.

Before I wrap up, I should take a moment to discuss the two different ways one can vote based on race (or gender). In one case, the voter's decision would be an affirmative vote, casting a ballot for someone because of their race. In the other case, you are voting against someone because of their race. To me, the difference is that in the former, the decision is one of identity and in the latter the decision is based on hate. And to me, that makes all the difference.

To conclude though, I keep coming back to this one feeling about Hillary (and Bill, too). She (they) care only about achieving their goals of ambition and power. While this isn't an uncommon trait among politicians, it feels like the magnitude is far greater in them. And so in the end, their drive and ambition obscures what might otherwise be their impulse to sacrifice (ie forgo power) in the course of doing what is right. Maybe McCain will be willing to do such a thing.

In a Word, Sophistry

As the primaries start to wind down to a conclusion (or so I hope), I have been trying to summarize Hillary's campaign in my head. One word that comes to mind of course is negative, and that was certainly part of her campaign. She definitely seemed to have no problem "going negative". In fact for a while it seemed like she thought McCain would make a better president than Obama.

But what has stood out even more than that, especially recently, has been her sophistry. She has been so good about trotting out clever arguments that are either false or disingenuous of why she should be crowned the nominee by the super-delegates.

Recently, she has been trying to tell the country that Florida and Michigan's votes should count. Granted, most of what she is saying here is true. It could hurt the Democrats if Florida and Michigan are not seated at the convention. And yes, in a democratic society, every vote should count. But she didn't seem to have a problem with the party punishing these two states before they voted. She made no comments about how unfair this is and she didn't campaign in either state. So of course her sudden concern for democratic principles comes off disingenuous.

We were also treated to arguments about how her voters are more important. Since working class whites were supporting her and not Obama, and since we need working class whites to win the election, then she should be the nominee regardless of how the pledged delegate count turns out. This argument is of course clever, but Obama could make the same case for the type of voters that have been supporting him.

Before that her campaign was saying the states she won were more important. Since she was winning states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida (swing states) and New York and California (big states), she deserved the nomination regardless of pledged delegate counts. This argument again sounds nice, but doesn't actually fly. Unless Obama is fundamentally unelectable, these states will go Democrat in the fall.

These two arguments when used together are even more clever. The voters in these important states are likely to not vote for Obama. Therefore, we need Hillary if we want the White House to be occupied by a Democrat. There is a certain part of me that is scared by this argument. In the end though it is made only to advance her goals, and not genuine and objective concerns. In fact, the super-delegates don't seem to have bought this argument.

Finally, she has argued that the popular vote is more important than pledged delegates - reminding everyone of the 2000 election. In her count, she is using Michigan and Florida and ignoring states with caucuses. The argument sounds good - that direct democracy is the best, but if she actually believed this, she should have said this before.

In her arguments, what matters is not objective reason and consistency. What matters is how she can lay claim to the nomination. Arguments only have to sound good and possibly convince people to be used.

As her sophistry continues, it strikes me how willing she is to take down anything in her ambitious path. She had no problem telling the country that McCain was more prepared than Obama to be president. She sees nothing wrong with weakening the power of the party to set a nomination schedule according to its choice and prevent states from running loose. And on top of that, she is willing to subvert the whole nomination process if it means she might win (for someone who has been one-half of the democratic party leadership since 1992, she seems awfully surprised at how broken the nomination process is).

All along, I have defended Hillary against attacks like this from Republicans. Maybe they were right after all.

She Gets My Vote

There have been two great Opinion pieces lately that have forced me to make a decision. First this piece by David Brooks lays out all the things that bother me about Hillary in a way that is more concise and well-written. Here are some highlights:

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

[Edit]

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

Then, Nicholas Kristof writes on the same theme:

Instead, the battle is getting bloodier. Mrs. Clinton spoke this week about the contest continuing for “the next three months” — and those would surely be a toxic three months. There’s already grumbling that Mrs. Clinton’s real strategy is to destroy Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the general election so that she can compete in 2012.

The bottom line is that people feel like Hillary is hurting Obama's chances in the general election. If she is going to continue, as many feel she should, and if she has the good of the party (and by extension the country) at heart, then she needs to completely change the tone.

But there is something I need to do. Absent of any changes from the Clinton campaign, I have decided that I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. Both Brooks and Kristof in their columns talk about the fact that the primary has become so divisive that some Democrats might stay home come the general election. From the Kristof column:

“It’s amazing how bitter it’s getting, and it can only get worse in the months ahead,” said Gov. Philip Bredesen, a Democrat of Tennessee, who has not taken sides. “I’d love to have a Democratic president, but I’d also love to have a Democratic Congress. If you’ve got people mad and staying home, that can’t possibly help candidates running for the Senate, candidates running for House seats, and for the State Legislature.”

I admit that I have felt that angry at times. And it is true that if Clinton wins the nomination without winning the popular vote or a majority of pledged delegates, I will resign from the party. But I will still vote for her come the general election. I won't like it, but I'll do it. I wish Clinton would change her tactics so that others who are upset like me won't even consider staying home in November. But that just seems unlikely. For whatever reason (selfishness, narcissism, myopia, hatred of Obama), she seems to only know how to fight to win no matter what the costs. Lucky for her, I do care about what is good for the country, and am willing to vote for her despite her amazing faults.

Hillary v. Bill

There have been at least two instances lately when Hillary has tried to distance herself from some of Bill's policies, saying she disagreed with them at the time. Whether we believe her is very important for how we understand her candidacy.

First is of course NAFTA. Here, the Obama campaign is using her schedules to show she supported the treaty. But she claims she actually didn't agree with it at the time. Now, I could understand if she opposed it, but defended it publicly because that was Bill's decision. But I am not sure I believe her. This strategy reeks of typical Clinton behavior; she takes credit for the good things during her husband's administration but says she opposed all the bad things.

The second example has to do with Rwanda. Again, she claims she was actually on the correct side of this issue, in favor of getting more involved. As in the case above, there isn't much evidence (but there is some - one person who will back it up) to support this. And in fact, if it was the case, why hasn't this come out before?

I want to be able to give someone the benefit of the doubt. But since there is scant evidence, and I don't much trust Hillary's candor, I have a hard time believing. Wouldn't it be great though if both Democratic candidates were serious about preventing genocide? That is probably why I am a little more inclined to believe her about Rwanda. I want to believe that it is more likely that she was shocked by what was going rather than unaffected.

Primaries Roundup

So there has been a decent amount of activity lately in the primaries. I want to cover as much as I can, so I'll be brief. Obama gave a speech on race last week. What it showed once again is Obama's ability to understand the nuance of issues. His ability to recognize anger on both sides of an issue, to see gray areas, would be a welcome change to a president that can only see the world in the Manichean lens of good and evil.

I shouldn't be surprised though that Bill Kristol doesn't want to talk about race. He thinks we would be better off just making progress without talking about it. Granted, I'll be the first to say too much talking prevents progress. But ignoring issues and pretending they will fix themselves is absurd. Only by recognizing where there are still problems (racial steering in the housing market for example). And to say that a discussion about race will only divide us doesn't make sense in light of the type of speech Obama gave - one that sought to unite and recognized both sides and then suggested what we can do about it.

Hillary released her schedules from her time as first lady. Again, the information seems to show that her experiences were both greater than what Obama was doing at the time, while also less than what she makes them out to be. Although at times it is hard to get a clear sense for what she did since of those who were there, some work for Hillary and say she is being accurate and the rest seem to work for Obama and say she is exaggerating. It would be great if someone objective came forward and said something. This story seems to confirm my thoughts though: she did go to the Balkans during the violence, but she wasn't actually ducking sniper fire. Valuable experience, but not quite as she describes it. True, this does sound like a problem most politicians have.

Richardson has endorsed Obama. This means a lot to me since I supported Richardson's run (before he announced an immediate withdrawal from Iraq). It also says something that a close friend of the Clinton's, someone who was appointed to two high-level positions under Bill, would decide to support Obama. The fact that James Carville would call Richardson a Judas is not surprising for two reasons. One, Carville is just plain crazy. Two, it shows that the Clinton people expect loyalty over objectivity. Apparently, if Richardson doesn't want to support Hillary based on her campaigning, then he should out of loyalty. Well, we saw from Bush what happens when you value loyalty too much.

Finally, it seems McCain gave more consideration to changing parties than he has let on. I don't blame him - although it is amazing how easily liberals forget about how socially conservative he is (myself very much included). I wonder though if this will help him or hurt him - meaning will he gain more moderate votes than he loses in conservative votes?

Maybe She Can Reapply

I can't even express how disappointed I am that Samantha Power had to resign from Obama's campaign. It said a lot to me that Obama would hire someone whose only claim to fame is an exhaustively researched book about the genocides of the 20th Century. I don't want to go into whether she should have resigned or not - or how bad her comment was (or not) because I can't even pretend that I am capable of being objective. I am a huge fan of Samantha Power; in fact I think I like her more than I like Obama. My hope though is that if Obama does win the nomination and eventually the White House, there will be a big role for her there. As the leading voice for intervention in genocides (as well as the leading critical voice for the times we haven't), she is seriously needed inside Washington.

And just as a reminder, Samantha Power was very critical of the Clinton Administration (which includes Hillary if she is claiming that time as part of her extensive 35 years of experience) in her book A Problem From Hell for refusing to do anything in Rwanda as 800,000 people were slaughtered. And we know how much Clinton's hate being criticized. So I am sure they are particularly happy knowing they knocked Power out.

In an ideal world, the Clintons would truly be sorry for letting the Rwandan genocide happen, and would forgive Power and say that someone who has worked so hard to advocate for those without a voice deserves a second chance. But we know the Clinton's are not capable of that.

What Happens if it Works?

I feel the need to talk about experience again. Hillary's claims of 35 years of experience never cease to fill me with anger. It is such a gross exaggeration. It works for now because in comparison to Obama, she does have the edge. But that will all change if she wins the nomination.

If she faces John McCain in the general election, she'll be up against someone who, by any objective standards, has considerably more experience. So while her argument right now is that the biggest qualification for being president is experience, she'll have to change her tune and all of a sudden and argue that experience isn't as meaningful. Sure, she can change what she talks about by focusing on how similar McCain is to Bush. But I don't know if the press will let her change the subject so easily. I imagine she'll try to continue using the "35 years" line, but when you compare McCain's 22 years in the Senate to what she has been doing over the last 22 years, he comes out way ahead.

This is one of the things that bothers me about her. She has no problem using an exaggerated and disingenuous argument even if she knows she'll have to backpedal later. Obama on the other hand is arguing for change. That applies whether you are talking about preventing another eight years of Clintons or getting the Republicans out of the White House. And I don't anyone doubts his actual desire for change.

I know there are a lot of pundits out there saying why one candidate or the other is better for the general election. I am not claiming that my argument is original, but I am surprised I haven't heard more people voicing it.

State of the Primaries

This NY Times editorial is such a great and concise description of the current state of the Democratic primary:

The election seems stuck where it has been for months. Mrs. Clinton's distinctly more negative campaign has left her open to bad memories of her husband's administration. Mr. Obama's notions of transformational change are as airy and unformed as they were when he first began using them.

I think it says something when a paper that endorsed Hillary says openly that her campaign is more negative. But I also agree that Obama, while inspiring is still quite elusive on policy.

The Times editorial also says this:

The quality of this contest has not reflected that interest or the candidates’ intellect. Instead of a serious debate about trade, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have engaged in a depressing fit of pandering to voters in economically troubled Ohio. They tripped over each other in rushing to attack the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement rather than offering voters honest answers about what government can and should do to help them adapt to globalization’s challenges.

I think the NAFTA issue has enraged me the most. Both candidates were tripping over themselves to be the most negative about NAFTA while making sure to offer statements that were vague enough to avoid being pinned down. Granted, in part I was so offended because I largely support NAFTA. But either way, I hate seeing candidates misrepresenting their positions for votes.

In the end, I am still supporting Obama because I don't want the Clintons back. They claim that being divisive is necessary. I don't buy that when Paul Krugman says it, and I don't believe it when they say it. I want something different, even if it is a vague and airy sort of different. I just wish that the different I will be supporting was more honest and offered a little more depth.

Imperfection

Maybe I should have made this point sooner. Both of the top candidates in the Democratic primary are imperfect. Barak Obama lacks experience and specific policy proposals. But his message is positive, inspiring, and offers change from 20 years of Bushes and Clintons. Hillary on the other hand has more experience (not as much as she claims though) and apparently has more detailed policy plans for the nation. But she also offers another presidency similar to her husband's. And since his presidency was remarkable only in its divisiveness, it isn't so appealing to bring the pair back to the White House.

In the end then, our decision, as per usual, is between two imperfect candidates. For better or worse, I am going to choose the one that offers some change while inspiring me and my generation. Barak may let us down, but I would rather take a chance on that then travel back in time to the 1990s - a time where our country refused to get involved in genocide, but had no trouble following every detail of a president's sex life or a celebrity murder trial.

Support for the War

I posted a while ago about Hillary Clinton's support for the Iraq War and how her justification seemed to make sense. This NY Times article muddies the water a little. Since I wasn't paying attention as much then as I am now, I find it hard to really understand how the debate played out - whether the resolution was a threat to Saddam or whether people should have reasonable expected Bush to use it to go to war. I don't have the energy right now to argue this through. But read the article, it is brief but interesting.

Praise for LBJ?

I feel a little bad that I have been bashing Hillary a lot lately. But it seems like I keep getting more reasons to. Most recently, she made the following comment, "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done."

There is so much that enrages me about this statement. First, it has long bothered me when people, usually presidential biographers but now Hillary too, give the credit for advances in the civil rights movement to Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson. While it is true we should be thankful that they did the little things they did, the civil rights movement was achieved not because of them, but because of groups like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, NAACP, and Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, among others. Neither Johnson nor Kennedy were marching on Washington, working in the deep south for African-American voter registration, or boycotting buses and lunch counters that wouldn't serve blacks.

Furthermore, Johnson in particular got behind the movement when there was already the momentum for it. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act, arguably more important, was passed in 1965. This was nearly ten years after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, kicked off after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat.

I know there are political science theories about "pressure cookers" and acting at just the right time, but personally, I think they are bunk. It is a way of celebrating someone who did nothing other than wait until there was popular support. Johnson may have worked hard in 1964 and 1965 for the bills to be passed, but the issue already had popular support - especially among northern whites who were outraged by footage of police attacking non-violent protesters in the south. He didn't use his position as Majority Leader of the Senate in the late 50's for these issues. Because of this, he doesn't deserve the credit for the Civil Rights Act.

This is about more than just one seemingly inappropriate comment though. I think it says something about the Clintons that they would celebrate Johnson's role in the Civil Rights movement. Bill Clinton, as president, seemed to rarely use his control over the agenda to promote big issues that didn't already have strong national support. Two major examples of this are Rwanda and the Balkans - and Somalia too for that matter (yes, it seems that I will never forgive President Clinton for his poor choices in the face of genocide). And Hillary has the same reputation. The point is, I don't want a leader who will be good at recognizing an issue whose time has come. I want a leader that will recognize something like civil rights and fight for it until others are on board. Hillary can't be that person if she is willing to make a comment like the one above.

Sometimes I Am Wrong

Okay, so just after I finish bashing Hillary's position on the war, I read this ($), by David Brooks. Maybe I was wrong about her; her position does seem to be exactly how I would want a leader to have looked at the situation. Here are some highlights from the column:

If they went back and read what Senator Clinton was saying before the war, they’d be surprised, as I was, by her approach. And they’d learn something, as I did, about what kind of president she would make.

The Iraq war debate began in earnest in September 2002. At that point Clinton was saying in public what Colin Powell was saying in private: emphasizing the need to work through the U.N. and build a broad coalition to enforce inspections.

She delivered her Senate resolution speech on Oct. 10. It was Clintonian in character. On the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. On the other hand, she also rejected the view that the international community “should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.” Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said sometimes the world had to act, even if the big powers couldn’t agree.

I have a feeling that my opinions on the candidates will be changing a lot over the next year or so.

Personality Matters

Until very recently I thought it was ridiculous that so many conservatives hate Hillary Clinton. I thought that if they were rational, they would easily see that she is far more moderate and would be far less dangerous to conservatism than someone like John Kerry, Barak Obama or someone in the mold of Howard Dean. I don’t know why it took me this long, but it finally dawned on me that personality should be important when making political decisions. This is something I recognized when it is in the affirmative, for example when looking at someone like John McCain or Barak Obama. But I never gave it enough credit when it was in the negative. If I am willing to vote for either McCain or Obama, neither of whom are exactly where I am on the political spectrum, then it is perfectly understandable for someone to oppose Hillary.

This doesn’t mean that I oppose Hillary. I think she would make a good president and depending on who she is running against, I would probably vote for her. But I do understand now that some people just don’t think she is a good person.