I’ll cut to the chase. If I were a citizen of the Hawkeye State, I would stand with the Obama delegates tomorrow. Basically, I think the Democratic nomination is between Obama and Clinton. Obama’s clarion call is for “change” while Clinton is campaigning on the basis of her experience. Given this context, here are some reasons why I think Obama is the better choice:
- When I think of Hillary Clinton, I begin making comparisons with Dick Cheney. They both share a secretive management style. And you want experience? Dick Cheney has decades of experience.
- We need to move away from dynastic politics and the cynicism it generates among voters. The hope that Obama offers is a welcome antidote to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Welcome to more of the same.
- Obama is an accomplished bridge builder. Where Clinton (like Cheney) tends to polarize voters, Obama has supporters on both sides of the political aisle.
- The Obama campaign’s donations come from a broader base of supporters. I’m cynical enough to believe that every politician is beholden to their financial backers. Although both Clinton and Obama have proven extremely capable at raising campaign funds (each gathered more than $100 million in 2007, surpassed only by President Bush in 2003), Obama has at least twice as many under $500 contributions than Clinton, and Clinton collected $15 million more than Obama in the form of donations over $2,000.
- Obama has proven a match for Clinton on the campaign trail, in spite of his “lack of experience” and lack of a former president to campaign tirelessly for him. He’s also managed to run a tight ship, with fewer leaks and snafus than the Clinton campaign.
- My BS indicator flags Clinton, but not Obama (it has to be shut down whenever Romney is in sight).
- Finally, and this is a huge issue for me: Obama has been consistently against the Iraq war–even in 2002, when this was a much less popular position. Clinton, on the other hand, has been positively hawkish at times.
Who would you nominate at this point? Why?
7 responses so far ↓
1 John White // Jan 3, 2008 at 10:25 am
It seems silly, but this Slate article on Elizabeth Edwards really made me re-think my dismissal of him. Worth reading.
2 the narrator // Jan 3, 2008 at 8:09 pm
After hearing Clinton’s jumping on the ‘change’ bandwagon, it became even clearer to me that she just doesn’t get it and Obama certainly does.
Clinton’s ‘change’, like a simplified political Hegelian dialectic, is not the type of change that America wants. Her ‘change’ is simply the other side of the nauseating and stalemated coin of partisan politics. What America does not want is another polarizing and politics-as-norm democrat to replace the polarizing and politcs-as-norm republican who currently reigns in office. Instead America wants a change of politics.
And that what Obama has to offer. Huck, Mitt, and the GOP’s want to offer the new Bush. Clinton wants to offer the anti-Bush. Obama is offering the anti-politics-as-norm.
This was so clear in comparing Clinton’s and Obama’s speeches tonight. Clinton saw the democratic turnout as a sign that the democrats can win the office. Obama sees the great turnout as a sign that America is ready for a new kind of politics.
3 Rich // Jan 3, 2008 at 8:17 pm
I’ll take any of the dems over whatever the GOP coughs up.
4 Elaine // Jan 4, 2008 at 8:03 am
Probably a bit late to jump on this, after the fact of the caucuses (caucusi? :)), but I will anyway.
John Edwards is still my candidate. I like that he recognizes that there is a disconnect between the rich and everyone else in this nation, and I don’t think some of the things he has been criticized for by others (big house, $400 haircuts) takes anything away from that message. It seems like some folks expect him to live in poverty because he is carrying this message; they don’t expect that of any of the other candidates.
I also like that he is calling attention to the altogether too much influence that big corporations have in this country. I think it is a worrying problem that no one else seems to be addressing…it upsets me when I see corporate “persons” getting cut more breaks and getting more rights that real people.
Now, having said that, I won’t have any problem supporting Obama if he gets the nomination.
5 William R. Sell // Feb 3, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Try 2 get it right. Voting for yet another media darling as vacuous in genuine positions on the issues is exactly what corporate Amerika wants U 2 do. Have ya noticed the conditioned avoidance of any REAL plan 2 get us outta the SH*T we’re in? Only the honorable Ron Paul answers directly, honestly and without insulting one’s intelligence as ALL yer club members do. Unless, of course,” security is so dear it must be bought with the chains of slavery….I know what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death”.
6 xJane // Feb 4, 2008 at 1:13 pm
lol! Hi William! I hope you stick around for some other of our discussions. But if you’re just here to spam us about Ron Paul you’re also welcome. What are, oh dear William, the honorable Ron’s direct, honest, non-insulting answers to the questions of Iraq, the coming recession, the loss of social security, and the wage gap?
7 The Midpoint » Super Tuesday // Feb 5, 2008 at 6:58 am
[…] Anyway, let’s take a look at seven reasons to support Obama. […]
Leave a Comment