“The reason that this is important, again, is that Senator Clinton, I think fairly, has claimed that she’s got the experience on ‘day 1’ and part of the argument that I’m making in this campaign is that it is important to be right on ‘day 1’ and that the judgment that I’ve presented on this issue [Iraq] and some other issues is relevant to how we’re gonna make decisions in the future. It’s not just a function of looking backwards, it’s a function of looking forwards, and how are we going to be able to make serious decisions in a dangerous world?”
— Barack Obama; Democratic Primary Debate, Hollywood, CA; Jan 31, 2008
So, I’m honestly not sure I’m even registered for the Primary, and still not completely sure which way I’d swing. I mean, I’m voting for a Democrat regardless of who the nominee, but I think I’d still lean Obama, were I to actually vote on Feb 5th. Listening to tonight’s “debate” on CNN tonight, they really agreed on nearly every issue except for a few relatively slight differences. The entire debate was more of a “conversation,” as there weren’t all that many barbs exchanged (with the possible exception of the quote above, which I kinda liked…).
At this point, I’m thinking more strategically for who I want to win the nomination. If Mitt Romney is the nominee for the Republicans, then either Obama or Clinton will win (providing there aren’t any major screw-ups by their respective campaigns). If McCain is the nominee, however, I think Obama would have a better chance competing against him – and if it came down to McCain vs Clinton, I really don’t think I’d mind him winning as much as I minded Bush winning in 2000/2004. McCain and Clinton both voted for the same war, come from the same generation, and arguably have comparable experience – but Obama represents a much clearer distinction between the two potential Presidential candidates. I think Romney would get hammered, but McCain would stand a fighting, if not good, chance to go all the way.
So, this raises two questions: (1) Would I rather have McCain win the nomination and have a tougher time getting a Democrat in to the White House, or would I rather risk having Romney be the nominee and have the Democrats screw up this election like 2004, perhaps actually having Romney win?, and (2) As with the first question, do I rather have Obama get the nomination, but perhaps not hold his own against McCain’s “experience,” or have Clinton go against the Republicans and energize the Christian Right to come back to the polls?
It’s a complicated election year, and it’s proving to be fascinating.
I’m just glad “A Daily Show” and “The ColberT ReporT” are back… 😛
Edit: My voter registration card arrived. I get to vote in the Primary. 🙂
Some of those slight differences you mention are huge when it comes to the general election and running the country.
1) The Iraq one is enormous. Hillary can’t give a good answer because she knows she doesn’t have one. She voted for war. She can pussyfoot around it all she wants but at the time when that vote went through it was very clear what the senate was authorizing. Barrack argued against the war and if you read the speech, exactly what he said would unfold did. That is better foresight than I and many other people had. But I see no reason to give her a pass on this. At least John Edwards admitted that he made a mistake. How can we elect someone who won’t admit when they made a mistake?
2) How will Hillary pass and enforce her Health Care plan? Republicans will emphasize its massive cost and no enforcement in the general election. It will cost more than Barack’s plan and it is less enforceable. Are there costs and enforecement issues with Barack’s plan? Yes. Enforcing that children will have to have health care is still an enforcement issue, but a much more minor one.
2) For all of Hillary’s supposed experience… what has she really accomplished? This is the real question. Barrack may have only been in the US senate for a couple of years, but he has already had his name on a number of bills THAT HAVE PASSED. Proliferation with Luger, campaign finance reform with Feingold, Ethics reform with McCain, etc. I think Barrack can make a case that he has accomplished just as much as Hillary in a much shorter time. It’s just media conjecture that he has to take his lack of experience as a weakness. He could fight that a lot harder than he does. I don’t think he should grant that to her. If you add his Illinois senate record, you could make an even stronger case. Especially since Hillary won’t release the records of what she actually worked on while first lady and instead just takes credit for everything that happened under Bill’s administration.
3) How could we possibly elect a democrat who thinks waterboarding isn’t torture? Anyone? I might throw up if Hillary is on the wrong side of that argument with McCain, the only republican who thinks it is flat out wrong.
– More to come later. I gotta get to work.
But to address your republican arguments – I agree that it would be scary to see Romney in the general election just because I despise him so. Obama definitely works best against him. Romney’s biggest weakness is that he changes positions on all of his issues. As he is aligned right now, he is fronting the republican party line, but he certainly hasn’t always been like that. Hillary shifts in the wind on a lot of issues too, and Romney could make it look like America is choosing between two people who do whatever the public wants, so why not choose him… Integrity becomes less of an issue. He can’t make that argument against Barack. PLUS Romney can still make the experience argument against Hillary too. Do most people really think being first lady entitles her to claim experience? Romney was a CEO AND a governer. McCain wins on experience against Hillary too.
Having said that, what is Hillary’s strategic advantage against EITHER Romney or McCain? They are dying to go against her. Obama may lose experience against either republican, but he will have the grownswill of grass roots support and the notion that he is going to be fresh hope for the country. In addition to painting a clear pro-war vs anti-war debate, a debate over health care costs instead of the ethics of “requiring” health care (Democrats don’t realize how unpopular MANDATING health care will be for economic focused moderates in the general electio. In spite of what you might think… Michael Moore’s Sicko single-payer position is not a popular one), A clear bright-line of talking to all world leaders or shunning them. A clear bright-line of torture or anti-torture (or torture/torture for Hillary/Romney, anti-torture/anti-torture for Obama/McCain). Hillary makes it much harder to see the differences between her and the republicans. Because she shifts her story. PLUS people just flat out don’t like her. The republicans are terrified of Obama, and with good reason.
His major weakness is that when you watch the news you don’t know if there is anything underneath all that optimism and idealism. But when you hear him go one on one (like last night against Hillary), you can see that his policy knowledge is clearly POTUS level. When people get to know him better, they like him more. By the time there are 20 general election debates, people will know that there is more than “naive” optimism to his side.
Bottom line – If we are smart enough to give Obama our party’s nomination, he will win the general election against either candidate the republicans throw out there. He will win against Romney because he will take all democrats and independent votes. He will win against McCain because he will still get all the democrat votes, split independents, and the hardcore republicans won’t come out to support McCain against Obama. They share too much in common. PLUS – Lots of republicans actually LIKE Obama.
Bottom line #2 – Obama is a flat out better person than Hillary. Reading his books really help me see that. He is a person with more integrity. He is smarter. He is better at working with other people. He runs a much cleaner campaign than her. He wants to win for the right reasons. He is the inspired, correct choice. I honestly believe that, and i’ve never believed in any other candidate like I have Obama.
Hillary will lose to McCain because even though Hillary will get a lot of the democrat votes (although not all, because she has been very underhanded and rowe-like in this primary, and many Obama supporters would support McCain), she will lose independents AND most importantly, the right wing base may not like McCain… but they sure HATE Hillary. They will show up in full force. Shit, I might vote for McCain over Hillary. I’m not sure about it, but I will certainly consider it.
Hillary might even lose to Romney. Probably not, but she isn’t popular enough among independents to risk it. Hillary would get all the dems (and most independents who think social issues trump economic issues – like me), but Romney will get independents who think the opposite AND all of the hardcore right wingers. I think having all the dems will still put her in the lead, but why risk it?
Ok, i’ll return to this later. I have been patiently waiting for Andy to put up an election topic. Probably too little too late by this point though.
WOW! And people say young America doesn’t care!
Son – how can you not know if you’re registered to vote?? Better clear that one up. And tell your sister she should address the question too!
I agree with your mom.
Firstly, I’m technically “registered,” but I don’t know where. I turned in my voter registration for St. Louis City a month ago, but I don’t know if it made it in to where it needs to be yet, as I haven’t received a notice from the City. So, either I’m still registered in the County, or now I’m registered in the City. I need to make a phone call, methinks…
Secondly, thanks for the lengthy response, Andy S… 😛 Do you have any specific links? I mean, I believe what you’re saying, but as with many political candidates, they will _say_ many things, but frequently don’t provide a clear record of what they’ve said (i.e. you say that Hillary hasn’t passed as many bills as Barack, but do you have that on a web link or something? …or some cost-effectiveness analysis of the two candidate’s health plans? ). I agree completely with the Iraq and waterboarding parts, but I have yet to see clear numbers/evidence of the health care plans and such.
Also, I never felt that the “experience” argument held any weight, as he only has a few less years in the Senate than her, and he worked in Chicago for many years doing work “with the people” (as opposed to sitting on the board of Wal-Mart “for the people”) and was in the legislature in Illinois passing all kinds of stuff (while Hillary was failing at passing health care reform at the national level).
Regardless of who has _more_ experience, I think they’re different _kinds_ of experience. It’s a quality vs quantity argument.