NYT: Clintons' Paradox

New York Times in an article titled "Campaign Adds to Complicated Clinton Legacy" reports that:

“The Clintons are and probably always will be a paradox,” said Leon Panetta, who served as chief of staff in the Clinton White House and who supported Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. “They were very good at being able to gain power and then try to use that power to try to help ordinary Americans. The paradox is that in order to gain power, they sometimes did whatever it takes to win.”

And that I think hurt her when it came to using the same strategy on Barack Obama. Obama has a lot of passionate supporters but I suspect that many non-voters just began to vote against Clinton after they felt she was willing to do anything to win the nomination.

Obama is the man

I never felt good about Hillary Clinton. When I first wrote about it, I didn't necessarily care about any other Democratic candidate at the time but all I knew was that I really didn't care about her at all. Now I know why I think Hillary is not the right choice and Obama is: in my opinion Hillary is hungry for power, and in her campaign the ends justify the means. We have had enough of these people in the White House and the Capitol Hill and I'm sick and tired of them. On the other hand, Obama so far has always taken the high road and stuck to the issues while being bombarded by Clintonites every now and then.

This man is smart, charismatic, intelligent (yes, one can be smart but not intelligent), and everything an educated immigrant like me would have thought of the leader of the United States of America before stepping foot on this land. He embraces the idea of America: multicultural, multiracial, proud, and humble at the same time. I know if he becomes the president, he will have his ups and downs. But give the man a chance: the least he can do is to be a good representative for a country that used to be the envy of the world and the dream of every child on middle-east streets.