After Mark opened the floodgates with that quote, I wanted a chance to respond to it, by writing about all the candidates in general, and then Mark's specific quote.
- - -
(click to view larger)Based solely on their positions, Kucinich is my preferred candidate. In fact, I've seen polls just based on isses that had about 50% of the country leaning towards Kucinich, while the next candidate had around 15%. But of course, we don't elect presidents just based on the issues. I have concerns about how effective he would be as a world leader. But the main problem with Kucinich is our two-party system, combined with a chicken and egg media coverage problem--he doesn't get much coverage, presumably because he's polling so low. But being excluded from debates and stories hurts his presence. But the election isn't until November. If he got fair coverage now, he might have a chance to actually compete. (Even in the initial debates that he was included in, the vast majority of questions were for Clinton/Obama/Edwards)
All that said, it's obvious that Kucinich will not be our next president.
And even though I consider our two parties to be a lot closer together politically than is generally accepted (and not in a good way--it would be great if there was a true reform party that was actually pushing for real change), the differences that do exist are enough for me to not consider any Republicans. By the 2006 election, the rest of the country had come around to that same feeling, that's why it was such a shame that the newly elected Democratic Congress couldn't do anything to get us out of Iraq and turn this country around. But still, when you compare the country that Bush inherited, with the country he's leaving behind...there's no way I'm voting for a candidate that supported Bush, the war, or the opinions that lead to our current situation. (Although, I will touch on Guiliani later since Mark brought him up).
(click to view larger)Which means that I'm down to Clinton/Obama/Edwards. I'd support any of them in the real election, but this is America! I get to choose from this wide variety of candidates. Look they even threw in a token women and token black guy (joke). Anywho, the three are virtually the same on the issues, except for timetables on Iraq withdrawal--the latest thing I read was that Obama and Edwards are committed to a withdrawal within their first year, whereas Clinton was saying 2013. Not to mention that she cribbed her healthcare plan from Edwards.
I'm not here to bash Clinton, but the things that concern me are the idea of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton regime and that her foreign policy might not be that dissimilar from Bush. But on the subject of experience, there is a fantastic Slate piece that shows that her expereince claim isn't justified. Furthermore, experience is important because it can prepare you for certain situations. But take Bush's presidency for example--his defining event was 9/11. Now imagine Clinton and Obama were President in 2001. Would more years in the Senate prepare someone for handling our country being attacked? I think you're prepared just based on who you are--and I think Obama and Clinton would have been able to do a lot better than what Bush did.
There's nothing wrong with Edwards, but I prefer Obama for his ideals and speaking ability. After watching Bush stutter and stumble through 8 sad years, I think it's time for our president to at least sound like he know what he's talking about. And I think Obama does anyways.
And as for Giuliani, he's no longer a serious candidate anyways. He put all his eggs i the Florida basket and he's not going to win there. But putting that aside, he's a terrible choice for president. He's run solely on the platform that he can protect his country, because he happened to be the mayor of New York during 9/11. Many problems there, first, I don't want a president who supports torture and thinks that the biggest threat facing the US is terrorism. That's how we got where we are now. Plus, there's lots of evidence that Rudy wasn't that great after 9/11 anyways. Furthermore, there's evidence that he's worse than Bush, an authoritarian narcissist who wants to keep this country at war. (If I had to vote for a Republican, it would be Ron Paul--but he's got more problems than his fans are willing to admit.)
My Favorite Tickets in order
Obama/Edwards
Obama/Kucinich
Obama/Clinton
Clinton/Obama
Edwards/Obama
Clinton/Edwards
One more thing, while it's not a reason to vote for Obama or Clinton, I am excited about the possibility we won't have yet another white male president. When our generations of children open their history books and look at those faces, I want them to see that our country has changed, that it is changing, and that anything is possible. I've also seen some articles-I think from Australia, France and Germany-that they would view the election of Obama as a definite sign that America is changing for the better. Again, not a justification for voting for either Obama or Clinton, but a nice little bonus.
- - -
That's my $.02. I respect Mark and his opinions and encourage him any anyone else to respond.
You will be challenged, but not for a few days at least. Until then, I'll let other people chip in before I tell you all what's right.
ReplyDeletewith pretty much everything Dave said here, so I'm really interested to see what Mark's much-hyped counter-response is.
ReplyDeleteI'm in agreement with Mark that speeches and debates don't mean much, but the points Dave listed show that there's plenty of legitimate reasons Obama is the better choice versus Hillary.
All that said, the whole mainstream media Battle Royale that's been setup between Obama and Hillary based on out-of-context remarks is just stupid...as usual they're going overboard with stupid news in an attempt to give the 24-hour news teams something to do.
My last comment should have started as "I agree with"...Blogger is annoying in that it wipes out anything you may have gotten to type in the comment box before the page finished loading.
ReplyDeleteEven though I'm an Obama supporter, I don't necessarily think that I made a huge case for Obama over Clinton. While I think Edwards would make a good VP, if I can't have Obama for prez, my next choice is Clinton.
ReplyDeleteThere aren't a lot of differences between Obama and Clinton. Based on their voting records, it's hard to distinguish between the two, especially when you look at the chart that Dave posted in the column.
ReplyDeleteThe things that it comes down to for me is how they got here and how we think they will act as president. We obviously can't know for sure how they will be IF one is in the White House. One other issue to look at is electability in the November election.
It should go without saying, but I'm a huge fan of whatever candidate is a big supporter of Israel and her security. Take my analysis with a huge chunk of salt.
Obama reached the point of running for president based on being a young, black, charismatic speaker. He first leapt onto the national stage by being the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention that nominated John Kerry to be the candidate in '04. He won his US Senate seat basically because the Republican party had a few issues in Illinois at the time. Prior to that, he served in the Illinois Congress. He's served about 2 years in the US Senate.
Clinton has been around politics practically her whole life. This could be good or bad. She's worked in/around Congress for a lot of years and has slept in the White House for 8 years. I think her time as First Lady could prove to be quite valuable if she were to be elected. From there, she ran for Senate in New York and has served for 8 years.
I think Obama has gotten here because he's a good speaker, a minority, and that's about all. I don't think he knows the inner-workings of Washington well at all and could be easily manipulated. He's shifted his stance on several things (I know he's tried to become more friendly to Israel after hearing that people over here don't like him.) and I don't see him having much in the "balls" department. Ironically, I see Clinton as having much bigger "balls" than Obama. She's been around Washington and what better presidential advisor can one have than her husband. Bill Clinton knows foreign policy and is loved around the world. If you can get Jews and Arabs to like you, that's a miracle. I think Hillary Clinton will act much in the same way.
Obama seems to be a fine choice if you believe that "the grass is always greener on the other side", but with Clinton, I think we know more or less what we're getting. I think she'll be tough when it comes to foreign policy and friendly when it comes to domestic issues such as health care and gay rights. To me, that's the kind of president that I want. Also, a president who might be able to get things done. I just feel like Obama would be like a kid sitting at the grown up's table. I might be able to support him in 4 or 8 years when I know more about him and after he's actually done something other than write some books. Sure, he might have an interesting background, but that shouldn't translate into free housing for 4 years.
One other thing. If you want to think about who has a better chance to win against the Republican candidate (looks to be McCain), I think Clinton has the better chance than Obama. This may be crude, but black people already vote Democrat. Women would be more swayed by being able to support the first woman President. Here's a story: When I was an election judge my senior year of high school, I was helping people check in and receive their ballot. While sitting there, twice I saw women come in with their husbands, take their ballots, go into the booths, then see the women come out of their booth to ask their husband who to vote for in a certain race. I feel like women married to wealthy men who usually vote Republican because their husbands tell them to might switch their vote to Clinton because she is a woman. However, I could just be wrong about this.
Last, one place I've gone every couple of weeks to follow the candidates is a page run by Haaaaaaaaretz called "The Israel Factor". They rank all of the candidates based on how good they will be for Israel. Clinton has consistently ranked near the top while Obama has always been near the bottom. I believe this should matter to everyone because being good for Israel means being good for democracy and security. Being bad for Israel means trying be nice to the Arab countries. I'm not saying this to be racist, but Arabs don't really respect words, they respect force. A lot of Arab are scared of Bush because he might attack them. If you ask me, it's better to be scared than loved. I think Obama believes the opposite. Here's a link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml