Hillary's whatever-it-takes desire for the presidency is greater then any philosophy or ideology. Like an upside-down American flag, we have it wrong when our president decides to get elected first and figures out how to do so second. Especially our next president, who will need to "right the ship". He or she should have some semblance of actual public service as a calling, attracting willing support because of common aims instead of wheeling-dealing in favors, influence, appointments, co-sponsorships and endorsements as currency.

Hillary has long felt we need another power-grabber for our president, to swing the pendulum in the other direction. What we really need is a positive, calming influence who will bring the runaway train back into the station. Abraham Lincoln's oft-quoted definition for American democracy was " a government of, by, and for the people". Hillary's career and campaign is at odds with this, while Obama embraces it in much greater degree.

We are very specifically told by Hillary and her supporters that we needher, to combat the tough, entrenched forces in Washington. She tells us Obama's populist agenda is idealistic and naïve, and that he won't be able to fend off the bad guys. But the majority of Democrats disagreed, rallying against Hillary's presumed iron grip on the Democratic nomination, to demonstrate exactly this ability and intention. 

Hillary had long held the Democratic political apparatus locked in, from key early endorsements to local and regional committee machinery, she had big money, big support and big name-recognition, using her fame and limitless publicity to cement her status as the front running contender. The fact that Obama has edged her out proves he can overcome business-as-usual politicians and it's because he is an effective, adaptive communicator.

For example, his podcast pages were straining servers months before his exploratory committee was announced. Many who heard these policy intentions committed to Obama early and seeded a well-run volunteer collective which is a testament to Obama's executive skill. To inspire and organize a body of no-pay workers, communicate a political message and achieve wins in early primaries against the DLC/DNC's well-equipped darling - and a power-packed field representing the full breadth of the party - was no small feat. 

Obama rose to the task, delivering perhaps his best speech of all in Iowa and followed through with Super Tuesday and "Chesapeake" victories. But Nixonian dirty tricks were already taking their toll -Madrassagate, Rezkogate and Patriotismgate. Perhaps the most damaging was Pastorgate. But Obama has met these lies, smears and distortions head-on, early and often, with purpose and clarity, at times not convincing everyone in the room, but maintaining admirable composure and refraining from any such tactics himself.

Hillary persisted though. Her win in Texas* was helped by a dose of the same type of "3 AM" fearmongering Bill Clinton denounced in his 2006 Democratic Convention address, and Hillary's win in Ohio came amidst the fast-moving NAFTAgate yarn, in which Obama was purported to have promised Canadian officials economic favor despite his anti-NAFTA campaign rhetoric. If you were paying close attention, it was a non-starter: the comments were not his, rather taken from a staffer's memo, way out of context and proportion. After primary day, it actually came out that Hillary's camp was guilty of exactly that which she accused Obama of.

She similarly "went there" on the Reverend Wright firestorm, only to have her own dubious religio-political ties exposed in the press. 

So Hillary is polarizing, but also bi-polarizing. First she told us she was proud to be sitting next to Obama on national TV and within 24 hours we saw the opposite in front of a Texas crowd - "Shame on you, Barack Obama". Did she change her mind, or did her strategists? This was only one of many varietal tactics and approaches floated throughout the campaign.

If you want "change", just watch Hillary shifting and retooling right in front of our eyes. A backlash against her negative campaigning produced the promise of a truce, but when it didn't propel Hillary, she went even more negative. She tried the confident, self-actualizing winner's strut, she tried the sensitive, wounded lamb, she tried sarcasm with "the skies will open...", she tried the staff reshuffle.

We've seen every almost move in the book. But Hillary's bestBernaysian campaigning appealed to the helplessness in people, promising answers to all of our problems but providing less detail then the candidate she complains is "all talk". 

In terms of real action, she laid low throughout her time in New York, choosing a few issues designed to be bullet points on her résumé, while people the world over longed for an anti-NeoCon champion in the Senate to check and balance the "unitary" cowboy's violations of law and cost-plus spending sprees. Hillary's years-long gambit was simple -stay out of the Bush vs. U.S. Constitution fray for a safer White House run.

But her most glaring waffle is also her biggest criticism - her support for the Iraq Authorization for Military Force. 

 1  |  2  |  3