Did I ever tell you who I voted for in the primary? I was lame--but honest--and split my vote between Clinton and Obama. I was able to do this because I was able to vote for individual delegates, and voted for three to each. Did I cancel myself out? Sure. But did I fairly reflect my preferences (as of Feb. 4)? Yes. I think I put the tie-breaker to Clinton.
I'm still torn. Clearly, each offers significant advantages and disadvantages, and I will vote very happily for either. I think Obama offers a new face, which is valuable, a stronger position in the foreign sphere, extreme intelligence (and I don't think he's nearly the empty suit some may try to portray him as--HLS, president of the Harvard Law Review, community organizer, and effective state senator count for something, after all), and certain intangibles. I think he's also pushing some exceptionally naive rhetoric (we can all just get along--not gonna happen), some light hypocrisy, probably not as good domestic positions, is untested and (important!) unexamined, carries the risk of losing the general elections for being a black man with a funny Arab-sounding name, and, if elected, carries the risk of (1) being rolled by the Republicans when he tries to compromise on everything and (2) being, like the Clinton administration, not yet ready for the challenges of governing. My biggest problem is the rhetoric and (1). I also think it's inevitable that he's set the bar so high in terms of hope and change and personal rectitude that people will end up being disappointed. (Not me! He's a politician, not a saint.)
Clinton's got the policy knowledge down, seems like she'd be tough in political fighting, has shown herself quite capable (as senator and in her prior career), is probably better on domestic issues, would come in ready, and is generally strong. On the down side, she's polarizing, which hurts her election chances, she's got a bit of the I-deserved-this-so-give-it-to-me attitude with concomitant political viciousness, is a bit of a panderer, was flat out wrong on the Iraq War, may not be able to force things through Congress because she's so polarizing (of course, control of the administrative state counts for a ton), and tends toward the dynastifying of America.
I could go either way. What about you?
3 comments:
No, I don't think we talked about it that much. I think 50/50 is fair. However, I flipped solidly Obama over the course of the last month and a half or so. I don't mind Obama's rhetoric that much. Honestly, it's been so long since political speeches were anything more than policy powerpoint presentations without the slides that I welcome any variation from the rote recitation of facts and figures. I agree that how Obama's policies will fare against aggressive Republican legislators remains to be seen.
I'm not so sure that Senator Clinton's administration would be a significant improvement in "readiness" over an Obama administration. My biggest issue with Senator Clinton's campaign has been her advisors, who seem like as soulless a pack of hacks as you can find out there. These are the people who will be advising Senator Clinton and shaping the course of her presidency. So far I haven't read a good thing about any of them; nor do I like the recent course of her campaign as they have wrought it. I look at them through the lens of the media and I see nothing so much as a new generation of Cheneys, Rumsfelds, and Libbys. I find Senator Clinton's sarcasm regarding Obama's search for unity regrettable. I find the comments of her campaign comparing Obama supporters to believers in a "fairy tale" borderline offensive. I find the views of some of her supporters, particularly former Congresswoman Ferraro, reprehensible. All of this informs my fervent desire for an Obama candidacy in '08.
I spent maybe 30 minutes (it felt like forever, and I honestly have no idea how long it actually took) Friday night at a party listening to a "conversation" between someone who's about 50/50 but leaning Obama and someone who is adamantly pro-Clinton and bitterly anti-Obama. It wasn't so much a conversation as a sustained diatribe, laden with vitriol. In that, it was profoundly bizarre. There were some valid points in the tirade, some points about relative strengths and weaknesses, bad behavior by Obama-supporters, and SEXISM, but it was ultimately unconvincing and counterproductive. It was also decidedly unpleasant. I don't want to tar the whole Clinton operation with that brush, but it informed my own views, and may tend a bit to support your biggest issue with Clinton--the nastiness. (Ok, it's not like I was being talked at by a Clinton high-up.)
But I would find it hard to believe that Obama hasn't gotten softer treatment than Clinton has and that there isn't something problematic about that.
I think I would distinguish between _softer_ treatment by the media, and _less_ treatment because there's simply less of a history, or less there to talk about. There are a number of topics in Senator Clinton's long public life that one can discuss with a television audience and assume some familiarity. Digging up Barack Obama's half-Asian half-brother? Arguably harder. It seems likely that sexism is still more acceptable than the racism in our society. It seemed like a good idea to two morons, for example, to show up at a Clinton campaign event and tell her to iron their shirts, whereas I don't believe that anyone's bold enough to show up at an Obama event and call him a racial epithet. So yes, quite possibly there is a difference in standards there. The important thing is not to react to the difference like Geraldine Ferraro or Mark Penn--and there's where the Clinton campaign and I part ways.
Post a Comment