Hillary 'dogged' or 'breezed through'?

I'm a believer in Hillary. I believe that her election to the world's most powerful job would transform, not only the US, but the world we live in. I can't wait till the day she wins the election. Not only I believe in her truly liberal beliefs and extraordinary ability, I believe in her victory as well.

I know that she is a polarising figure. I know right-wingers in TV and radio, her decades-old enemy, continue to attack Hillary, fearing the prospect of her presidency. But what I'm concerned is that recently a lot of liberals seem to be reluctant to support Hillary; because of her Iraq War vote.

When Hillary Clinton visited New Hampshire to campaign for the next year's U.S. presidential election last weekend, the main story that most news media reported from her weekend campaign trail through the Granite State was the negative one that her position on the Iraq War was unpopular. The AP article in the CNN website; titled 'N.H. voters want clarity on Clinton's Iraq Views'; says "defending her vote means she'll continue to be dogged by skeptical questions about it". This 'dog' imagery seems to be the favourite among journalists, left and right alike, to describe the Hillary's weekend campaign in NH. The conservative Chicago Tribune believes "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was dogged with questions about the war as she campaigned in New Hampshire over the weekend" while the headline of the Independent article is 'Clinton is dogged by criticism of war stance'.

But it is too prepossessed to judge that Hillary was always hounded by noisy anti-war protesters for the whole weekend. New Hampshire Union Leader, a Manchester paper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire, sheds the different light on Hillary in NH with a more detailed report of her campaign. According to the Union Leader, Hillary 'breezed through' New Hampshire. Though 'attendees grilled the senator on a wide range of subjects', she handled them with great understanding of the issues and compassion for people; 'audience members said they were particularly impressed with Clinton's command of the issues'. The AP article refers to her 'command of the issues', about which the UL article tells in depth, in just one paragraph; "she deftly fielded questions on a range of subjects, from education to health care to the genocide in Darfur." It devotes more than half of the article to the Iraq issue with negative connotation; ending it with the response of Claire Helfman, a voter unsatisfied with Hillary's position on the Iraq War. If you read the UL article as well, you get a different impression; you will understand that 'by and large, they seemed as interested in domestic matters as in the war in Iraq'. Even for the Iraq, you get an impression that voters understood Hillary's position; and it finishes with the positive, confident comment of the event organiser, Debora Pignatelli.

Both articles can be true; obviously, some voters can be 'converted' by Hillary while others can remain unconvinced. It's only the difference of focus, but readers will have a completely different idea about her weekend campaign. Two realities, two biased media.

The Independent asserts that 'her vote in 2002 to authorise the Iraq war will be the biggest obstacle to her winning the Democratic presidential nomination'. I think it is too early to determine that, but my question here is; should liberals stop supporting her because of the vote she cast five years ago, and she hasn't said 'it was a mistake'?

I oppose the Iraq War, so I support it if she clearly says the 'yes' vote she cast in 2002 was a mistake. But is that an important issue for liberals, as the Independent claims? She has been a staunch critic of the Iraq War for a year or two years; and her speech is a clear proof for that. It is just my total speculation, but it is possible that she doesn't 'admit a mistake' just to avoid being 'swiftboated' by the right-wing noise machine. It doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't believe it was a mistake, though we never know what she actually believes. And what really matters is what she really believes.

She is a supporter of the universal health care. She has been working for the children's rights for nearly forty years. She has consistently supported women's right to choose, civil union, gun control, and stem-cell research. She is, unequivocally, a feminist. It is a good time to read her awe-inspiring 'women's rights are human rights' speech for the Beijing Conference on Women in 1995. Did we ever have such a passionate women's rights defender as a leader of the big, powerful, Group of Eight countries; in fact, the Superpower of the world? (Only three women have ever been a leader of G8 countries; all three are from a conservative party.) It would be almost impossible to imagine that such a historic change wouldn't improve lives of millions of women in the US and all over the world.

She has the intellect, experience and ability to achieve these goals. 'Calculating' is not necessarily a bad trait, if she is calculating for the sake of the higher good. She knows how to win; so she declared 'I'm in and I'm in to win'.

What else can we desire from the presidential candidate?

The U.S. and the world need her integrity and trust and respect. John Edwards is a passionate supporter of health care and poverty reduction. Barack Obama is a brilliant star. But I believe, as she spoke 38 years ago, 'Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free'. That is why I believe in Hillary.