Promises

One of the reasons Clinton-backers are giving for choosing her over Obama is that no one can say whether or not he will actually fullfill all the promises that he makes. He's a great orator, gets listeners riled up with his promises of change, but will he deliver? Who can know, since he has not had commensurate experience. Whereas Clinton (first name Hillary) was in the White House as Bill's right hand. She's experienced, they say, and if anything, she's a great learner: she learns from her mistakes. So when she makes promises, they somehow have more legitimacy. Because her experiences make her more knowledgeable about what's possible and what's too Kucinich.

Ok, I see. I was wondering why experience would make her more trustworthy, after all an experienced politician could make empty promises as well as the non-experienced politician. But it's not a question of who's more capable of lying, but who is more capable of making promises that are fulfillable.

Sometimes it helps to write things out as if I'm talking to someone.

Anyway, I decided I want King Arthur for president. In "The Once and Future King", Merlyn tells him he's going to come back in a few centuries. Could the Second Coming be now?! Long live King Arthur!