Hello,

I understand you're very busy but this is a short essay giving my perspective on the decision between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. It shouldn't take you more than five minutes to read and it's probably more interesting than most the things you are forced to read daily. Plus, I missed The Hills and Gossip Girl to write it, so humor me.

As the 796 superdelegates from the Democrat Party prepare to make their decision at the end of August, which will inevitably decide the Democratic nominee, I wish them luck. I wouldn't want to be in their position. And though I am merely a 22 year old commoner, who only has 1 vote out of millions, instead of their 1 vote out of 796, I still want to tell you that I have shut off MTV, put down my Ipod, and actually organized my thoughts on paper because of this so-called movement that is rallying behind Barack Obama. I have often wondered when I would be concerned with a presidential election or have an interest in a news topic that didn't pertain to a drugged out celebrity. My lack of interest certainly isn't due to my lack of knowledge, but because of my lack of hope. The lack of hope that I or anyone else can improve anything around them has allowed despondency to proliferate. The hopelessness of improving our healthcare system amongst the deeply imbedded managed care system, or improving our unemployment rate as more jobs continue moving overseas, or battling poverty when the housing market worsens by day and the value of the dollar diminishes. It seems almost ludicrous that anyone would or could change the status quo. So when Barack Obama speaks about fixing these problems, which are promises that America has heard over and over again, it is hard to believe he will or can make good on these promises without the appropriate experience, whatever that means, needed for the presidency. Nevertheless, it isn't the readiness of Obama, but the readiness of this particular zeitgeist that Obama's movement has augmented that I believe in, which has not only brought hope, but power to millions of people who are beginning to believe that they can change this country.

Now some of you may think that I am just a naïve youth who follows the empty words of Barack Obama like a whimsical fantasy. But may I remind you that this country has been founded on the fantasies of men and women who have used their words to inspire the great movements that shaped our country. Some would say The Declaration of Independence was nothing but words created by the impulses of obviously delusional men who wanted to challenge an unbeatable empire for independence. And certainly it was those naïve, "latte sipping" youths that foolishly signed up to fight against a superiorly trained British army. Or how about the crazy tall dude who spoke about abolishing slavery in a country that was economically dependent on slaves and who had to rally support using nothing but words to convince the country that this radical change was needed even if it meant putting down delicious lattes and fighting for it. The same goes for Susan B. Anthony, Upton Sinclair, and Martin Luther King Jr. all who inspired movements with their inexperienced and hopeful words. Thus, it is impossible for one person to change the status quo, but then again it is almost equally impossible to change the status quo without that one gifted individual empowering and inspiring the people to become part of a movement, just like the soldiers of the American Revolution and Civil War, the boycotters of Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. Even the "latte-sipping" crowd beginning to follow Barack Obama has gathered in the hundreds and thousands not just to better their lives, but perhaps create changes that will better the lives of the millions of Americans that have yet to come.

However, doesn't Hilary Clinton have more experience and qualifications to bring about these changes and movements with more success than Barack Obama? Perhaps so, but let's look at history to see if there is a correlation between experience and being a successful president. Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt all were thought to be under qualified for the job and yet these men confronted some the most difficult challenges in American History and triumphed. Andrew Johnson who had some of the finest qualifications to be a good president flinched in the face of reconstructing the South and was the first president to be impeached, which he later could add to his long resume of experiences. The fact is that it's not their experience that presidents rely on in the time of crisis, but their judgment and character that they depend on. Unfortunately, there's no specific political experience or qualification that can create good judgment or character, you either have it or you don't. And though I respect Hilary Clinton and the things she has accomplished in the Senate, I can't help but think of the things she has failed to accomplish because of her lack of judgment. She once was thought to be an unqualified, naïve rebellious woman challenging the status quo with her crazy ideas of socialized medicine. But sadly, many years later, she has become another cookie cutter politician criticizing the hope and optimism of Obama's followers as nothing more than fantasy. It's hard to believe that Hilary Clinton can bring about change when she has grown accustomed to compromising with and appeasing lobbyists, the champions of the status quo. In fact, lobbyists who represent businesses, which would lose billions if medicine were socialized, have already silenced her once. For instance, during her 2006 campaign for Senate, "Mrs. Clinton [was] receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers." [1] It was once said that for the economy to function properly there needed to be laissez-faire which demanded that government stay out of the affairs of business. Now we have come to a time when there needs to be a demand for business to be hands off the government in order for politics to function properly. For someone who has financed a large portion of their candidacy through lobbyist donations, it is hard to believe in her change.

The fact is that Hilary Clinton would have been a more inspiring candidate eight years ago because her experiences in the Senate seem to reinforce her cynicism and her flaws rather than her accomplishments. Come this August you will make a decision based upon who will be the best and most suitable candidate not only to win the general election but also to bring change and heal a nation that has been plagued with problems existing way before the Bush Administration. I truly believe that the excitement and optimism that has ensued during this primary race is because of Obama's message of hope. A message that has spurred a movement, unprecedented in the last few decades, which Obama has inspired and will continue to inspire but who also depends on this movement to transform his words into reality. The country now looks to Governor Ritter and other superdelegates to make their decision that could be written in the history books as one of the highest or lowest moments in America. But, perhaps I'm wrong, since I'm only 22 and admittedly still naïve. But where my inexperience and youth makes me naïve and fantastical, the age and experience of my elders makes them cynical and unenthusiastic about change. And although cynical people may be more practical, they are surely not remembered, for it is the delusional fools who dream and believe in something different that are honored in the history books. Now I'll leave you because I'm in the mood to sip another latte. But if you have made it this far in the reading, I want to thank you for taking the time to get the perspective of the next generation.