creidylad: (Default)
[personal profile] creidylad
I hear a lot of you talking about Obama and how excited you are about his presence, his leadership, his vision.

I am almost certainly voting for Hillary Clinton because I feel the Barak Obama healthcare plan does not go far enough; it will leave way too many Americans uninsured. I think he will spend a lot of time pandering to the right and will not stand his ground sufficiently against the republicans. (I may vote for someone on the ballot who is neither Obama or Hillary Clinton, but I'm not sure.) Still, I like Clinton's ferocious and unapologetic intelligence a great deal, and that she doesn't pander.

I won't be crushed if Obama wins. So long as he changes his health care plan. Frankly, I'd be happier if either of them would talk seriously about addressing poverty on a wide scale.

But here is my question, meant to get real responses, not to poke at anyone...

What is it in Obama's conrete vision of America that inspires you? I mean beyond the feel-good language -- what specific things are you for, that Hillary Clinton doesn't have? What makes you feel he actually has the experience or wherewithal to carry through on his promises to restore American prestige?

I could still be persuaded to change my mind.

Date: 2008-02-05 01:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladybarnard.livejournal.com
It's what he doesn't have that interests me. Baggage.

I'm really sick of attack-dog politics. Hillary is the current poster child on the Dem side for this, IMHO. I also feel like nominating her is going to galvanize the right in the fall, possibly leading to a McCain victory (or god forbid, Romney). I just envision four more years of attacks, lawsuits, special counsels, yadda yadda and I'm really tired of it. Did you hear the woman at a recent campaign stop who was 38 years old and had *never* voted in a presidential election that didn't have a Clinton or a Bush in it? Yeah...me, too. I want something different.

Personally, I don't see much light between the two candidates policy-wise and either one is going to have to make compromises to get their various plans enacted. (I believe this because neither will likely have the supermajority required to get legislation through the Senate without the threat of fillibuster.)

However, I'll be voting for McCain tomorrow. It's a strategic decision on my part because Romney must win Missouri if he wants to stay in the race. I don't want him in the race. I'd rather have a Republican on the ticket who I could at least respect a little bit, just in case. If it's Hillary in the fall, I'll hold my nose and pull the lever, but I won't be happy about it.

You asked! {{{hugs}}}

Date: 2008-02-05 02:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] creidylad.livejournal.com
An understandable strategic decision; not one possible in NY where you can only vote as you're registered. As I was just pointing out to Rani23 down there, I have found a lot of Krugman's articles persuasive that there is a tangible difference in their policy agendas. For one thing, his has no teeth vs. the republican plans. He can't run on it in the big race.

Date: 2008-02-05 03:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladybarnard.livejournal.com
Not yet. But there is plenty of room for refinement once the nomination is secured.

fall for the rhetoric at your own cost... again

Date: 2008-02-05 01:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] minnehaha.livejournal.com
That "Bush,Clinton,Bush,Clinton" talking point is the Republican smear machine continuing to paint Mrs Clinton in the most unpalatable light. My, but they are insidious, aren't they?

K.

Date: 2008-02-05 01:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lollardfish.livejournal.com
It's a fair question. First, I have to say that I am not now and never have been a Clinton democrat. I see no signs that H. Clinton will run things any differently.

Second, I think rhetoric and command of inspirational speech counts for a lot. It doesn't so much to people who are engaged with the process anyway, but Obama has the power to get otherwise disengaged Americans to vote - purely through rhetoric.

I think that most of America agrees on most things, but that the political machinery of the last generation works so hard to divide us on the rest. Clinton is part of that legacy. The Clinton White House rode a tide of economic prosperity, took credit for it, and accomplished so little. Hillary Clinton works hard to find the possible and gets some of it done. Obama, it seems to me, wants to change the notion of what is possible. Clinton Democrats were ineffective political machine-driven centrists, but somehow managed to pursue a centrist agenda without really changing much or getting much done. So they surrendered both left-wing principles and didn't get results. Is there any reason to think that just because we change from Him to Her, than things will be different this time around? I don't, because the staff with whom they will surround themselves will be the same.

I reject Bill Clinton's invocation of race. Yes, it was the spouse, but I find the protests of innocence entirely unconvincing. I reject the negative campaigning in which Obama's reference to Republicans was lied about. This is the Clinton machine. I reject it. I won't vote for it.

Clinton is working hard at casting herself as the kind of candidate that you want to vote for. But I, for one, do not believe in her convictions. She's another senator that voted for the Iraq war.

I also believe that Hillary Clinton will not win the general election. The dislike she inspires in me, a lefty, must be a thousand-times magnified on the right.

Obama is, I believe, trying to change the path of this country. I plan to vote for him and see what he does. I know what Clinton will do. Not interested.

Anyway, those are my feverish thoughts. I'm surprised by how negative I've become about Clinton, given that I used to think she was an adequate candidate.

Date: 2008-02-05 01:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] minnehaha.livejournal.com
Oh, goody. What's a Clinton democrat?

K.

Date: 2008-02-05 01:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lollardfish.livejournal.com
To my mind, Clinton Democrats were pro-corporate/business at the expense of unions, unemployed, underemployed, and other vulnerable folks in our society. When I look back at the legacy of the Clinton years, I don't see a lot to be proud about.

Date: 2008-02-05 01:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scottso.livejournal.com
I've avoided giving my opinions this year, but since you asked.. ;)

The biggest thing I like about Obama's platform is his education plan. Not only is it an impressive, complete, comprehensive reform package, but he's announced how he's going to pay for it.

And, yes, I do find his his feel-good speeches about uniting America very inspiring, even if they are light on substance. He is asking the country to put partisan politics behind us to make the world a better place. Naive? Perhaps. But it appeals to the idealist in me.

Of course, there are negatives, too. He wants to start pulling troops from Iraq immediately. That is a reckless attitude. As you know, I was dead-set against the war from the beginning, but now that we are there, we *are* their infrastructure. We will be there for 50 years (minimum). And suggesting otherwise is simply irresponsible, if not deceitful. Clinton is at least honest that we can't leave.

Ok, he's not perfect, but I like him. Now let's look at Hillary. She certainly has some plusses, but the negatives worry me immensely --

Her economic advisor, Roger Altman, is planning on restoring her husband's team. While your first instinct may be positive, I cannot let this go. The Altman team under Bill Clinton utterly destroyed every Asian market they got their grubby little hands on.

Purportedly for globalization, their downright criminal actions (which did revive the US economy) left millions penniless in a crash that most countries still have not recovered from.

The Clinton era was one of bankrupt morals. Not because of a blowjob ;), but because of their abuse of the rest of the world. ([citations needed], I know -- I have more books on my shelves about it than I have links. Come over and I'll show you.)

Then there is the censorship issue. Clinton has promised to revive COPA. What does that mean? It will re-criminalize any discussions of an adult nature (including abortion) outside of age-protected areas of the Internet.

In addition, she (and Lieberman) are co-sponsoring legislation to legislate enforcement of the video game rating system, with federally mandated standards.

Yes, she has her good points too, but if she wins the nomination, I may just have to vote Republican. That's how much she scares me.

Date: 2008-02-06 06:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] joe-bacchus.livejournal.com
can you recommend one or two of the above mentioned books on Clinton economics and the Asian economies? Thanks.

Date: 2008-02-05 01:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] catya.livejournal.com
I don't see a big enough position difference between them to change my vote based on position. (Even on healthcare - either will be a vast improvement, after all)

It's lots of intangible stuff that swings me to Obama - how i think his leadership will change the place of the US in the world, how he is inspiring younger people to care about politics, that sort of thing.

I will totally not be sad if she wins, and i would vote for her in the General Election with no qualms at all.

Date: 2008-02-05 02:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lollardfish.livejournal.com
"Still, I like Clinton's ferocious and unapologetic intelligence a great deal, and that she doesn't pander. "

I love her intelligence. I'm just not convinced that detail-oriented is actually necessary. A president deals with hundreds of things a day, sets broad agendas, and follows up on how things are going.

Moreover, I very much think she does pander as much as any of them. Why do you think she doesn't?

Date: 2008-02-05 02:06 am (UTC)
evilmagnus: (Default)
From: [personal profile] evilmagnus
Still, I like Clinton's ferocious and unapologetic intelligence a great deal, and that she doesn't pander.

Her stance on Iraq has been nothing but pandering and disingenuous statements. She has also completely mis-stated the Congressional record in h er justification of her support (or lack thereof) of various bills relating to the war. 100% perfectly played politics in line with the (then-current) popular sentiment, but also massively dishonest.

She claims experience in the White House, but never held a Security Clearance and was never present for any briefing or cabinet meeting. When she traveled with Bill internationally, her role was hosting cultural events. So if she does have some special magic knowledge of running the government, it's because Bill broke security clearances and told her.

She claims 35 years of 'government experience', which apparently includes her years in law school.






Date: 2008-02-05 01:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] minnehaha.livejournal.com
Sorry, but it's frankly stupid to think that Mrs Clinton doesn't have useful, viable experience in how the presidency runs. She lived in the White House, she's smart, she knows how the presidency runs in ways that no other candidate can or does. The end.

K.

Date: 2008-02-05 08:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thickie.livejournal.com
i'm with K. she knows what needs to happen for things to get done. does that mean the "right" thing will always get done? probably not. probably too many favours to "pay off", as she really seems to be....sorry....i have to say it....part of the old "boys" network.

but again, i'm not an american politics or history expert by any stretch.

Date: 2008-02-05 09:17 pm (UTC)
evilmagnus: (Default)
From: [personal profile] evilmagnus
By that logic, the Treasury agents who run the guided tours ought to make excellent cabinet officials. ;-p

She's a highly skilled politician, though. Intimately familiar with how special interests work. That's a great selling point, if you're worried about getting a candidate who doesn't know how to accept money from them.

Date: 2008-02-05 02:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rani23.livejournal.com
I really liked the article today in Salon. Particularly this line:

She provides a steel-solid track record, he a nimbus of vague hope.

I'm voting for steel, myself.

Date: 2008-02-05 02:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] creidylad.livejournal.com
This is pretty much my overwhelming sentiment. Paul Krugman's many articles about their health care packages haven't hurt, either.

Date: 2008-02-05 02:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thickie.livejournal.com
you raise a good question, and i'm not the one to answer it. i don't know enough about their platforms to comment. that said, and i'm going to get flack for this.....

it's his enthusiasm and sense of having a vision that perhaps he has yet to share with the general/voting public. i don't want to throw specific names, but those of you with a sense of history can think of a few i'm sure.

be wary of voting for the Barak Obama charisma.

Look at the platforms of both candidates, and what they may or may not bring to the table, in what is looking like a clinton or obama versus mccain.

then how do you vote? do you vote differently based on who is running for the democrats, or do you like either against a republican, who is not-so-bush-or-reagan-like?

Date: 2008-02-05 03:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lollardfish.livejournal.com
One more. Paul Wellstone said, "A great president is one who successfully calls on all Americans to be their own best selves."

Date: 2008-02-05 03:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dr-memory.livejournal.com
There's plenty of stuff I like about Obama's positions, but for me this is effectively a "no" vote on Hillary Clinton, for a dozen reasons that are actually one reason: 3,500 and counting dead Americans. Half a million and counting dead Iraqis. (Well, except that we very deliberately stopped counting.) Nearly half a trillion dollars tossed into the bonfire so far, and no end in sight.

Anyone who voted in favor of this atrocity isn't fit to be dogcatcher. She did. End of discussion.

(And no, it's not just her. I will be donating the maximum and going door-to-door for anyone who challenges DiFi in the primaries in 2012.)

Date: 2008-02-05 04:44 am (UTC)
ext_86356: (tiger!)
From: [identity profile] qwrrty.livejournal.com
Despite my enthusiasm for Obama I'm aware that there is relatively little policy difference between his platforms and Clinton's. And I honestly have not thought hard enough about the differences between their health care plans to know which makes more sense to me. (I think I have this nagging feeling that both of them are still too deeply tied to a health care model that is so fundamentally broken that the differences hardly matter. That is probably unfair.)

Anyway, the reason that I believe Obama would be a more effective president than Clinton is not based on their policy statements. It's because I believe that Obama's approach is inherently more suited to getting things done. An administration run under Clinton is almost certain to hit deadlock almost from day one: the right wing's entrenched hatred and suspicion of all things Clinton, combined with her take-no-prisoners approach to governing, seems almost to guarantee it. And if that comes to pass, it hardly matters how good her health care policy plan is if she's unable to implement it.

Obama might not have any more luck on that front than Clinton, but I think he will. This essay does a good job of explaining how I feel about it: "I like Obama’s platform fine, but that isn’t why he has my support. I like Obama because he uses conflict resolution approaches reflexively and constantly and those approaches are transformative."

This may sound like it reduces to supporting him on the basis of his feel-good language. In a way that's true, but it's not simply because his language makes me feel good. It's because I think that for us to find ways to work together, as a nation, may be even more important at this juncture than any one policy initiative, and I think that Obama's approach suggests that he is the candidate most focused on taking that path.

Obama

Date: 2008-02-05 09:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] minnehaha.livejournal.com
I think he has a better shot at beating McCain.

B

Re: Obama

Date: 2008-02-05 09:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] minnehaha.livejournal.com
And I don't worry about specific policy differences. It's all rhetoric at this points. And it'll all be politics if one of them wins.

They both have their heart in the right place, I think.

B

Date: 2008-02-05 12:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bethlet.livejournal.com
The reason I won't vote for Hillary doesn't really have anything to do with her policies or platform. She's just too polarizing. You either love her or hate her, and even a good deal of her party is in the latter camp. I think at this moment in time, America needs a president who will unify people, and I don't think she's the answer.

I might vote for Hillary in another election, but I don't think this is the right time for her.

obama

Date: 2008-02-05 04:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] joe-bacchus.livejournal.com
So, this thread finally inspired me to get my own account, rather than just piggyback on my wife's (ak-blackcap). What I dislike most about Obama is that his rhetoric has a very anti-intellectual undertone, intentional or not. He consistently says that political division is the biggest problem in america. Not only is this factually wrong, but it contains the message that if you care enough and are aware enough about politics to feel strongly that someone else is wrong, (which they are) then you are the problem. Every one should just forget about our differences, hold hands and hope. Don't think, just hope.

Of course, it is in his best interest that people not think or care too much. If Bush were actually put on trial for war crimes, his accomplices, Hillary and Barak, might get tried as well. And yes, even though Obama didn't vote for the initial war authorization, his continued votes to fund the war makes him an accomplice-after-the-fact, and guilty for ongoing crimes, like the carpet bombing of parts of Baghdad a few weeks ago.

Not that this matters. It will be a Clinton/Obama ticket. They'll make a big deal of the close race and the brokered convention, only to build up the tension so as to get more publicity when they announce the unified ticket at the convention.

Date: 2008-02-05 05:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ratphooey.livejournal.com
My vote won't matter, since the PA primary is so late. I'll vote for Kucinich if he's still on the ballot, or Edwards.

I can happily vote for either Clinton or Obama in the fall without having to hold my nose. But I'm so happy to see the surge of enthusiasm for Obama lately. It's inspiring, even if his campaign is light on the details.

I don't think either of them will be able to fix healthcare - there are too many middlemen entrenched (witness the usual framing of the debate as one over health COVERAGE, not health CARE).

Date: 2008-02-06 09:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] grue23.livejournal.com
I like Obama's education plan. I also like the fact that he has included dealing with inner city drug problems/rehabilitation in reasonable ways as part of his platform. There is also a less tangible, but also important, thing - he's an inspiring speaker and emits leadership in a way that Clinton does not.

If I had my way, purely based on platform, I would be voting for Richardson first and Edwards second. Obama and Clinton are virtually a toss-up for me.

Profile

creidylad: (Default)
creidylad

August 2010

S M T W T F S
12345 67
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 26th, 2017 08:43 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios