A Tale of Two Women . . . Hillary and Elizabeth . . . and a political dilemma

I admire both of these women, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.   They exemplify two different political approaches . . . and the dilemma of choosing.

Hillary Clinton is the consummate centrist, awesomely experienced, and ready to be commander-in-chief.   I believe she is driven by concern for real people's lives and the desire to make the world a better place.   But I also believe that her primary focus in running for office is the necessity of winning the power of office in order to do good works.   Not alienating key constituencies, including money sources, becomes a major consideration and leads her to be overly cautious.   Power perhaps has a slight edge over principle.

Elizabeth Warren is the consummate issue-driven, gifted articulator, and the principled inspiration for a populist movement.   I believe she also is driven by concern for real people's lives and the desire to make the world a better place.   Her primary focus has been and continues to be a sharp focus on issues and principles.   She's not afraid to offend the big banks or any other system that takes advantage of the people.   In fact, she made her name in Washington by challenging the banking system -- and. because of that she lost the opportunity to be the first director of the federal agency she created to protect consumers from the big banks and credit card companies.    Instead, she was elected to represent Massachusetts in the U. S. Senate, where she is proving an effective legislator.   Power comes from adherence to passionate principle.

So in choosing a presidential candidate, do we go for the pragmatist who will compromise in order to get what she can from a very partisan congress?   Or do we choose the idealist willing to do what's right even if it means defeat?

The pragmatist-insider could play it safe and settle for what can be wrung from the system that we have to operate in.  The idealist-fighter will inspire many people who have lost faith in politicians and could even spark a powerful movement that could bring about real. long-term change.  

Baracki Obama wanted to be the latter;  he tried to be.   But he had to settle for being the former -- and he has accomplished a great deal, in spite of unprecedented opposition in Congress. 

Who will be able to accomplish more in the long run?   That is the dilemma.   I want an idealist and an inspiring leader who can change the system.   But can that person win?   And, if she should win, can she govern in the system that is Washington?  Ideally, we could have someone who embodies and excels at both . . . but then Bill Clinton can't run again.

Ralph