So. Barack. Hillary. I remain undecided. I've been doing a bit of campaign research, trying to look at records and comparative positions, and am getting some leanings one way or another -- but it's hard to avoid the partisan rhetoric.
Anyone have some suggestions for a good site or two that will compare the two of them without their own imposingly large axe to grind?
And anyone have something substantive to throw out there to help influence me?
Note that whomever I choose, I will likely be voting for one or the other of them in November, since I prefer either to any of the GOP likelies. So I'd just as soon not be presented with opinions that one or the other is Satan Incarnate (at least not without supporting evidence).
So ... thoughts?
Filed under :: Elections 2008
I don't know if you saw my post on the subject, but it is still the last thing I've got on the blog. It's not exactly a policy vs. policy examination, but there really isn't a huge difference in policy between the two.
For me, the things that separate them are much more "touchy feely" (almost moreso than I'm comfortable with).
In the first place, I think that Obama is a better (and definitely more eloquent) leader. I'm inspired by him like no candidate I've heard in a long time.
As far as the "experience" question goes, what the heck experience does Clinton have over Obama? That she was First Lady? They're both Senators. She's just been there 7 years and he's only in his first term. (And as for the "Senators don't make good Presidents" argument...uh, hello, JFK? Truman?)
My other reservation is, admittedly, more pessimistic. In my opinion, nothing will energize the Republicans more than a Hillary campaign. The day she is nominated is the day I say "Congratulations, President McCain."
I don't know if you saw my post on the subject, but it is still the last thing I've got on the blog. It's not exactly a policy vs. policy examination, but there really isn't a huge difference in policy between the two.
I did read that, though I'd forgotten.
For me, the things that separate them are much more "touchy feely" (almost moreso than I'm comfortable with).
Yeah. Obama is inspiring (enough that I sort of shrink back from "drinking the Kool-aid"), and Hillary sets my teeth on edge a bit. I don't know how much weight to put on that.
In the first place, I think that Obama is a better (and definitely more eloquent) leader. I'm inspired by him like no candidate I've heard in a long time.
Which,a gain, I automatically mistrust my reaction to. I both want the man in the white horse and fear my wanting him.
He reminds me a lot of JFK. And Lincoln.
As far as the "experience" question goes, what the heck experience does Clinton have over Obama? That she was First Lady? They're both Senators. She's just been there 7 years and he's only in his first term.
From what I have read, Obama also has state legislative experience Clinton doesn't. He's also done more major bill work in the time he's been in the US Senate than Clinton. On the other hand, she's been eating, breathing, and drinking policy since college, pretty much. I think the experience thing is something of a wash; maybe a hair toward Clinton, but ...
(And as for the "Senators don't make good Presidents" argument...uh, hello, JFK? Truman?)
Or, for that matter, Edwards, Thompson, McCain -- Senators are regular jockeys for the White House, and usually labor under a disadvantage from it (legislative compromise being an ugly business) more than governors do from their backgrounds.
My other reservation is, admittedly, more pessimistic. In my opinion, nothing will energize the Republicans more than a Hillary campaign. The day she is nominated is the day I say "Congratulations, President McCain."
I don't know. I can certainly see that argument (esp. if McCain is the nominee, since he's got a lot of enemies among the GOP powerbroker and conservative types -- they might be a lot more enthusiastic or able to rally the troops a lot more in the face of a Clinton candidacy). I think she can overcome that, but it would be ugly.
But, then, that raises the question -- do you vote for the best candidate (based on what you think they'd do), or do you vote for the least worst candidate who you think can win?
I'm quite pro-Obama myself, which would, in my view, become a complete slam dunk if he were to pair up with John Edwards and take on the Edwards' planks as part of his campaign.
In reality the two candidates ARE more similar than either would admit publicly. That is, however, good for the Democrats as we can be certain that we'll get similar results in the White House whichever one we elect.
That said, I'm of the opinion that this is not the year to nominate Hillary. I think she carries TOO much baggage from the Clinton era. She's too big a target for the GOP and there will ALWAYS be the question (right or wrong!) as to whether she's actually governing or providing Bill with a back door back into the presidency.
With all other policy issues being very close I'll take the insipiring speaker, the person who is most likely to win over allies world wide and best restore our reputation world-wide.
Bottom line: I'll vote for the one I LIKE better because otherwise they're close to a wash.
I realize there's a temptation to distrust that appeal due to the stomping we've been getting from our political leaders in the past, but it's time to have a truly charismatic leader who is eloquent and passionate back in office again.
Obama/Edwards 2008!
In reality the two candidates ARE more similar than either would admit publicly. That is, however, good for the Democrats as we can be certain that we'll get similar results in the White House whichever one we elect.
From a policy standpoint, I suspect you're right. That's why I'm not *too* panicky about the decision.
That said, I'm of the opinion that this is not the year to nominate Hillary. I think she carries TOO much baggage from the Clinton era. She's too big a target for the GOP and there will ALWAYS be the question (right or wrong!) as to whether she's actually governing or providing Bill with a back door back into the presidency.
Actually, most of the Hillary-bashers I hear are more concerned about her governing than Bill.
Here's a question: between Obama and Clinton, who'd be more likely to remain in the Senate if not elected? Obama, I suspect; I've always had the sense that Hillary was in the Senate largely in order to run for president.
I realize there's a temptation to distrust that appeal due to the stomping we've been getting from our political leaders in the past, but it's time to have a truly charismatic leader who is eloquent and passionate back in office again.
After the last seven-plus years, I'll settle for just eloquent on a 4th Grade level.
Obama/Edwards 2008!
I can very much see that ticket.
My politics put me closer to Kucinch and Edwards, but that said I'm going for Obama because if there's anything I don't want it's another legacy President. Let's have a President who isn't returning to the scene of the crime.
First as son and then a wife - Oh no!
Plus Bill had his 8 years and I don't want him back. We need to move forward, and I'm not sure how Hilary can call her campaign a "change" with a straight face!
Of course Obama is from my state where he ran against the odious Alan Keyes, so I listened to all the debates on radio. I was very impressed at how he stayed on-topic (as opposed to "on-message") with that SOB, always returning to facts, to reason, and shrugging off even egregious insults. His knowledge of and passion for constitutional law is of course superior to any candidate I've ever heard, and we could use somma 'dat right about now.
While in the Illinois senate he worked with people far apart from him politically, and managed to get some real results. I've seen him confront some cherished sacred cows without bluster or bravado, but with steel-balls courage. His personal background includes a wide range of socioeconomic stratigraphy and he has actually met and related to Muslim people in an international context. We could use somma 'dat, too.
I do not have any really strong opinions about Hillary other than I don't like her much but that is a personal rather than political observation.
I don't know if that helps, but it's my 2 cents.
So you'll love this - While at home today I got polled! I can't remember the last time that happened. I was asked the regular questions, "How likely are you to vote on 2/5? What registration? Who vote for etc.?" I gave my previously stated answer.
Then the guy went into the demographic questions, but the best one was "Do you consider yourself a member of the investor class?" meaning do you have more than just a savings account. Wow, that sounds really spiffy - investor class. Considering the prevalence of IRAs, that puts a lot of people in the "investor class."
But wow - I've been polled. Based on those polls someone will make a spurious prediction about the outcome of the election. I'm part of the election process!
My 2 euro's:
One Right of Center corpratist dem who is the husband of the 3rd best republican president ever with a 49% negative rating,
versus.
One Right of Center christianist dem who is *not* the above candidate who has a huge potential to cave at every step so that the GOP and the press they control likes him.
Both are so far removed from me politally it really boils down to that for me.
Don't beat around the bush, BD -- tell us what you *really* think. :-)
No, I appreciate your feedback (along with Mary's and DOF's).
I have the debate queued up on the DVR tonight, and plan to watch it later. I've actually avoided any of the debates to date, for reasons I can't quite articulate.
At this point, I think "gut" is a completely fair tool for comparison, because when it comes down to it, being President is unlike any of their past positions, so experience is fairly useless, promises are definitely useless, and what we have to go for is, "Who is the President that our gut tells us is going to do the best job for us and our country (in that order)?"
With that in mind, my gut wants to like Obama, but finds him strangely empty. I'm on the record of being suspicious of women in politics because it seems they have to be zealots to get anywhere, and I'm naturally suspicious of zealots. I don't like McCain because I saw him as having changed his own opinions under the force of peer pressure, not because of new evidence, observations, or considerations. Romney is scary-ignorant, and I don't even know who the alternative party candidates are this year.
Right now Hillary's got my vote. The "strangely empty" bit is probably because I've been helping interview people who sound a lot like Obama: all the right phrases, the right background, but still not right for the job.
Yeah, but I fear my gut. :-)
I have some further impressions from my viewing of the debate last night, but haven't had a chance to write them up yet.
The thing that both impresses and dismays me is how Democrats are so willing to try to make the best choice instead of the pragmatic one that they will debate the merits of Obama vs. Clinton on policy rather than pay attention to the fact that there is ZERO chance that Hillary will be elected. Zero. Nothing short of the resurrection of Ronald Reagan would energize Republicans more than having the opportunity to vote against Hillary (and Bill) Clinton.
The problem is that most Democrats are discussing this amongst themselves like there's some real choice here and not listenting to the voices outside their own walls.
Maybe it's because I live in Florida--a bastion of conservative whackos if there ever was one--but if Obama runs, it will be a fight. If Hillary runs, it will be a massacre. And we'll be stuck with another 4 years of Bush's policies...to likely be followed by Jeb Bush's run for the White House.
I don't mean to be so cynical about it, but it's just amazing me how seemingly fatalistic the Democratic Party is...from cutting out Michigan and Florida from the primaries for having the audacity to think they might matter to blindly thinking that anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat will vote for Hillary Clinton! (I, personally, will crawl across broken glass to vote for her over the Republican candidate, but you can't win a general election depending on idiots like me.)
Never doubt the Democratic Party's ability to self-destruct -- especially when "principle" in involved ...
You may well be right, Solonor. Among conversations I overhear about the Dem contenders (amongst non-Dems), the worst that's said about Obama is that he's "inexperienced." Hillary, otoh, evinces 19th Century Politics style rhetoric in villification, demonization, and sheer vitriol.
The fact of the matter is that, to a lot of people, she's just unlikable, and conveys a patrician (so to speak) superior attitude and self-righteousness that would make her right at home with many on the Right, were she not a Woman and a Liberal (sorry, BD) and a Clinton.
"The fact of the matter is that, to a lot of people, she's just unlikable, and conveys a patrician (so to speak) superior attitude and self-righteousness that would make her right at home with many on the Right, were she not a Woman and a Liberal (sorry, BD) and a Clinton."
Funny you should say that considering the news today that Ann Coulter is supporting Hillary over McCain. Just the kind of ringing endorsement every candidate needs!! :)
Of course, I never take anything Coulter says seriously (aside from the meta-issue of how irresponsibly she speaks). I really can't imagine that the conservative core of the GOP, faced with McCain vs. Clinton, would choose the latter over the former (any more than the liberal base would choose the former over the latter).
But ... yeesh.
Yeppers, got the vid of Coulter, it is priceless. ;P