Former speechwriter for President Obama explains why it may be more important to elect Hillary Clinton on 2016, than it was to elect his boss in 2008.

Yeah I know, I'm the dragonlady.

This Daily Beast article was written by Jon Favreau, longtime Obama speechwriter, who describes with some embarrassment how his initial perceptions of Hillary Clinton proved to be totally wrong: 

This same story has repeated itself throughout Clinton’s career: those who initially view her as distrustful and divisive from afar find her genuine and cooperative in person. It was the case with voters in New York, Republicans in the Senate, Obama people in the White House, and heads of state all over the world. There’s a reason being America’s chief diplomat was the specific job Obama asked Hillary to do—she has the perfect personality for it. 

Your eyes are rolling. You don’t often see or read about this side of Hillary. You don’t doubt her fierce brilliance when she’s debating policy with Bernie Sanders. You don’t doubt her stamina or tenacity when she’s sitting through hour eleven of the Benghazi Kangaroo Court. But when it comes to nearly everything else, Clinton can seem a little too cautious and forced—like she’s trying too hard or not at all, preferring to retreat behind the safety of boilerplate rhetoric and cheesy soundbites. It’s a tendency that can’t just be blamed on her opponents or the media, though I wonder how many of us would be so brave and open in our public personas after being subjected to 25 years of unrelenting and downright nasty criticism of what we say, what we do, and how we look.

Favreau closes the article in this way:  

Hillary Clinton isn’t perfect. She isn’t flashy or entertaining. She isn’t cool or hip, so please stop forcing the poor woman to learn the Dab on Ellen. As someone who’s been in politics for a few decades, she’s made plenty of mistakes, and will probably make many more. 

But Hillary is also more than just a policy wonk who can’t wait to start shuffling through white papers in the Oval Office. She cares. She tries. She perseveres. And now she has a chance to tell the story she’s always wanted about America: the story about a country that found the courage to turn away from our darkest impulses; that chose to embrace our growing diversity as a strength, not a weakness; that pushed the boundaries of opportunity outward and upward, until there are no more barriers, and no more ceilings. 

At stake in this election is control of a Tea Party-run Congress, at least one Supreme Court vacancy that could tip the balance for a generation, and the very real chance that a highly unstable demagogue could become the 45th president of the United States. So while I may not have imagined myself saying this a few years ago, I certainly believe it now: It’s far more important to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016 than it was to elect Barack Obama in 2008.

I found this article to be particularly interesting because just last night I had a similar discussion with my daughter, who as you know is a Sanders supporter, about the importance of electing Hillary Clinton.

My daughter flew up here for my birthday and we have been having a blast together, eating out and going to the movies, but last night we watched a rather interesting debate on "Real Time with Bill Maher" which inspired our own discussion on politics.

My daughter it is sad to say has some of the same issues with trust concerning Hillary Clinton that are often voiced by those who only know of her by way of the constant attacks lobbed by the Right Wing.

Her basic take on Hillary is that she is bought and paid for, and that she is controlled by special interest groups who will significantly influence her policies in the White House.

In response I explained to her that being paid to give speeches in no way made the speaker beholden to those paying to hear that speech, beyond the delivery of said speech.

We also talked about political revolutions and I listed the number of past politicians who had once been heralded as change agents who fell by the wayside such as George McGovern, John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Howard Dean, and of course, Ralph Nader.

I explained that all of these folks had tremendous support, ESPECIALLY from younger Americans, but that in the end they failed to get the support they needed to "fundamentally change politics."

My daughter did admit that my points about voter turnout and political connections within the Democratic party were valid, but of course in the end she wants to vote her conscience, and who can blame her for that?

So of course she still plans to caucus for Bernie, and that is fine with me.

But in the end, once Hillary is the candidate, she has no problem marking her name on the ballot.

And to me that is all anybody can ask.