Madison (WI) Capital Times: Hillary Clinton clearly is best to lead nation

In the upcoming Democratic presidential primary, Wisconsin voters are blessed with two candidates who are smart, energetic and forward-looking. Nonetheless, the state's residents have to decide who will be the most qualified starting on the first day in the Oval Office. My choice is Hillary Clinton.

I have had the good fortune to observe Clinton's career while living in New York. Up close, she is an unusually tough and savvy as well as charming political figure. While not as visible as Mayor Rudy Giuliani on 9/11, she showed great mastery in the difficult days after the attacks in helping to bring about the physical and emotional recovery of New York City and gaining federal assistance for ground zero workers exposed to toxic air.

As important, in her eight years in the Senate, she has compiled a strong liberal voting record in the tradition of Wisconsin's great Sens. Bob La Follette and Gaylord Nelson. While she has known defeats (e.g., health care in 1994), she has turned her reversals into legislative prowess on Capitol Hill.

Her work on the Armed Services Committee and her fact-finding visits overseas belie the notion that she has limited foreign policy experience. Her vote for the congressional resolution on Iraq in 2002 was a vote for continued weapons inspection and diplomacy and in opposition to pre-emptive war, as she clearly stated in her Senate floor speech. Today she is trying to prevent the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq by requiring prior congressional approval for any such outposts.

Of extraordinary importance, she has taken the lead on the most important economic crisis to face our country in decades. She was among the first of the Democratic contenders to propose a bold economic recovery program designed to rescue the nation from recession. Over a month ago, Clinton advocated for $70 billion in emergency spending and a backup of a $40 billion tax rebate should economic conditions worsen. Hers is a direct attempt to help the most threatened people in America -- namely, lower-income families facing foreclosures of their mortgages, those in need of home heating aid, and people who require extended jobless benefits.

Her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, belatedly came out with his own plan, which seemingly lifts most of his ideas straight out of Clinton's proposal.

On a more specific level, Clinton's recommendations on helping Americans caught in the subprime mortgage mess are far-reaching. She has called for a moratorium on foreclosures, a freezing of interest rates, the use of federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans, and augmented regulation of the financial industry.

Obama has come up with an alternative plan, which, by contrast, does none of these things but tinkers around the edges. He backs a bill against mortgage fraud, supports an average $500 tax credit for homeowners, and endorses additional funding for a limited class of homeowners. His is a tepid response to an enormous tragedy.

In many ways, Clinton is to the left of Obama. She has outlined a program of universal health insurance -- meaning that every person in America would be covered. By contrast, his plan is more restrictive and would leave millions of people uncovered.

Lastly, Clinton is a fighter for change. Obama, on the other hand, is a self-described conciliator. What Democrats want today, however, is a battler, not a mediator. They have suffered enough from the vicious blows of President Bush and the Republicans. What the party needs is a nominee who will take the contest directly to the opposition. Come the fall showdown, a candidacy of "friendly persuasion" is going to be Swift-boated into oblivion.

Stephen Schlesinger is a specialist on the foreign policy of the Clinton and Bush administrations and is a frequent contributor to magazines and newspapers.