Hillary the Polarizer

It is amazing to see the reaction I get when I mention Hillary Clinton and the Presidency. The sample pool (my friends) would probably be fairly similar on an ideological scale, yet the saying really is true: you either love her or your hate her.

My ambivalence stems less from her shifting convictions than from the simple fact that she yet to demonstrate she can lead. All we've seen is a failed Health Care Reform package she did as First Lady. The rest is speeches.

An analogy: if the country is like a company, then Senators are like the legal department. They spend a lot of time shuffling paper, negotiating, courting favors and grandstanding, but at the end of the day, they have little to show for it. They are vitally important, and it's fascinating work, but you wouldn't necessarily pick one of them to run the company. You would pick someone from your Executive Pool, which in this case would be one of the 50 governors of one of our fine states. Governors have to fix budgets, educational systems, welfare, job creation, taxes, immigration, etc. They can't pick one issue and spend two years getting a bill together. They have to act. They are constantly in the press. They have to work with both parties in the state legislature. In general, there is a more executive tone to the job, which is why it is a natural transition to the Executive Branch of the US Government.

Someone please explain this to her.

If Hillary were smart (which she is), she would run for Governor of New York, instead of Elliot Spitzer, and take back the coveted seat for the Democrats. Then we could see her in action.