Is Change Really Better Than Experience?

Over the last few weeks, we have been hearing an ongoing argument between the camps - especially in the Democratic Primary race - as to whether we need to nominate someone who wants change or someone who has experience and can hit the ground running on January 20, 2009. Barack Obama and, to a lesser degree until the last couple of weeks, John Edwards have been telling everyone who will listen that we need change, and he is the one to bring that about. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson have been promoting experience as the key to a successful Presidency. My question is, do we really need to choose one at the expense of the other? The answer, as I see it, is a resounding "NO!"

Let's look at this another way. Let's say you hate the way your chin looks. It's a carbon copy of Jay Leno's chin, and while it's served him well, it's only caused you pain and embarrassment. You finally have had enough, and you want to change it so it looks more like......let's say.....Brad Pitt's chin. Would you (A). Borrow a jack hammer and use it to carve an inch or so off the offending chin; (B). Ask your neighbor, a very nice and likable fellow, to take a carving knife, cut the skin over your chin bone open, then use a hammer and chisel to shorten the offending bone, and sew it up with a needle and thread from your wife's sewing kit; or (C). seek out a successful and well-educated plastic surgeon to do the job? Now, I'm fully willing to accept the fact that there are probably some reading this who would choose A or B, but the majority would choose C, without a shadow of a doubt. Why is that, you ask? Simple. You want to look better after the change than you did before, and a qualified surgeon is the only way to make sure that will be the outcome.

Did you understand the comparison? Change is good, we all want a change from what we've had the last seven - going on eight - years, but change for change's sake will be no better than what we've got now, and might even make things worse. Real change, the change we want with the results we want to end up with, needs to be done by someone with the experience and knowledge to do it correctly, not just by any Johnny-Come-Lately who happens along. With all of Senator Obama's cuteness, likability, and earnestness, he simply doesn't have the chops to jump into the Presidential driver's seat at this time, and if we put him in there, we may end up in worse condition than we are now. Remember, the reason for putting Bush in was because he'd bring about change, he wasn't all "Washington'd up", and he was just so doggone funny. We all wanted to go fishing with him, have a beer or two, and swap stories, remember? Do we really want to get into that mess again? I sure don't.

Hillary Clinton has been vilified for many, many things over the years, simply because of who she married. However, none of those things - I repeat, with emphasis, NONE OF THOSE THINGS - was ever proved to be true. She was exonerated of all of them, the same as her husband, but he had the misfortune to have dallied with the wrong intern and then lied about it. Hillary did nothing whatsoever, but that hasn't stopped all the rumors and innuendo from flying just the same. There are a lot of people who simply won't vote for her, no matter what, and that's a shame, because she would be a wonderful President. I hope she gets the chance to prove that.

Hillary studied "How To Be An Effective President 101" at the side of a man who history will record as one of the most effective Presidents of all time, mark my words. The man came in to an economy that was down the tubes, with deficits expected as far into the future as the eye could see, yet he left office with a surplus and balanced budget for years to come - or so we thought. We hadn't counted GW Bush's incompetency into the mix yet. We were respected by most countries and downright hated by many others, but before he left office he got a standing ovation from the UN, and we were seen in a better light by most all countries because of him and his fair-handed treatment of them. And when the WTC was attacked the first time, he had the perpetrators in custody and convicted within a year. Man, how we could have used him after 9-11! There are many other accomplishments to be listed that show just how effective he was, but I haven't got the space here to go into them all. Needless to say, even after taking into consideration all the things people have accused him of doing, the good far outweighed any bad, actual or perceived, that he did while in office. We certainly can't say the same for the current President.

Hillary learned how to deal with other countries and keep them on our side. She visited many other countries and dealt with many foreign leaders, both as First Lady and as a Senator, and already has an in with most of them, which would help with her foreign affairs agenda. She knows the ins and outs of trying to get programs enacted, has a good working relationship with the other Senators and Congressmen, she's worked to bring changes for women and children, the poor and middle class, and those who can't afford health care, and as a result has changed the lives of untold millions of Americans over the 35 years she's been serving this country. She has the knowledge and the experience to bring about real, verifiable change, and to me, that's what is the most important quality in a President at this point. And before you think I've forgotten Bill Richardson or John Edwards, let me tell you why I've given them short shrift in this debate. Mr. Richardson has served in many capacities, that's true, and his experience is also verifiable. However, when the man tries to answer questions, etc, he always rambles on and on, getting completely off subject and making no real sense at all. I don't find that a comforting trait for a President, as it's too reminiscent of GW's style of speaking. As for Mr. Edwards, I find his smarminess a bit off-putting, and the fact that he is now happily trotting along behind Mr. Obama, kissing his backside with a happy grin on his face like the Senator's favorite puppy dog, a bit nauseating. I find it hard to believe he's serious in what he says - except as it applies to his own family - and his lack of real experience shows, too. And I feel he's making a real play to be Obama's VP nominee now that he thinks Hillary's out of the picture.

I know a lot of you will disagree with me, and that's fine, but I hope you look at what I've written here and take it to heart. Think about it and ask yourself if change - any change, whether good or bad - is the important thing, or whether change brought about by someone with the knowledge and experience to know what needs to be done and to go about getting it done in a timely manner is the best way to go. I hope you'll agree with me that the latter is the best way, and that Hillary is the one who can give us the change we so desperately need.