Even With Obama Momentum, Hillary is Best Choice
Why Clinton?
As a political blogger, a lot of people ask me about the presidential election: Who’s winning, what the major issues are, what the goofy side is, and yes, who I support. Gentle readers of this blog know I believe the Democratic party has the best platform, ideas, wisdom and soul to lead America.
With the primary race so tight, many voters are torn between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, as am I. The basic question you need to ask yourself is this:
Do I want a president who will make me feel good, or will do the most good?
Barack Obama is a natural orator. His speeches (hat tip, Obama speechwriter) move, sway, and recruit an audience. The cadence of his voice has the call of a Siren, drawing the listener in. Last night on the obnoxious Fox News show Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld (yes, I was up that late), the obtuse Gutfeld himself said that Obama’s speeches made him feeling willing to do whatever Obama asked.
A few hours earlier, Republican presidential front runner Senator John McCain stole one of Obama’s signature lines at his victory speech after the Potomac primaries, stating as his last line: “I’m fired up and ready to go!” Clearly McCain currently believes Obama will be the nominee. Obama’s primary victory speech was also a general election speech, speaking of McCain as the politics of the past.
Obama clearly has the momentum, the voice, the uplifting message, and can excite young people and independents in the party primary.
So what’s not to like?
Obama’s got no beef.
The problem is that Democrats may be wishing they made a safer choice in the general election. Oh they had their chance with Biden, Dodd and Edwards. Even Richardson could have bested the Republican nominee. They had their chance to nominate a safe win in November. HAD, being the operative word.
The policy differences between all the major Democratic candidates, save Kucinich and Gravel, were varied, but ultimately minute. The Democratic base would have been happy with any of the presidential candidates as the nominee. But with the wind at their backs, and history floating around the female Clinton and African-American Obama, the base became over exuberant and voted with their hearts over their head. Choosing the riskier of the nominees, choosing Change over Experience, Democrats have rolled the dice with their choice of candidates.
Not that voting with your heart is a bad thing, but ignoring the general election response to the party nominee is tempting fate.
So now, after all the candidates of been knocked out except Clinton and Obama, the momentum is aligned with Obama, and like their heart strings, Democrats are going with the flow.
The problem is, Obama’s got no beef. It’s what makes him attractive, no baggage. It’s what makes others flock to him, no specifics on issues. It’s why the Republicans are frustrated with his ascendance, nothing yet to attack. And it’s Obama’s Achilles’ Heel in a general election, once the Republican attacks begin in force.
Conversely, Clinton has the opposite problem. She’s got baggage, but everyone knows about it. She has specifics, so much that she sounds like an uninspiring policy wonk. She has experience fighting off Republicans, but voters don’t seem to want a fighter right now. But Oh they will in the general election.
McCain’s steady hand, veteran status, and old world charm will make him very attractive in the general election, and when voters start thinking about the reality of a McCain versus Obama presidency, and who they feel comfortable with, McCain’s attraction will increase. American’s know what McCain will do, but are not so sure with Obama, and that’s a huge difference.
Voters know what Clinton would do as well. Bonus Clinton. History will be made with either the first woman or first African-American president. Split decision. Republican’s tend to prefer the devil you know over the devil you don’t. Point Clinton. (see Ann Coulter’s take as an example). Clinton has a political machine that has been developed over thirty years. Point Clinton. Et cetera.
With either Clinton or Obama, it’s pretty clear that a Democrat has the best chance of winning the White House in the fall. As president, Obama would certainly make you feel good about America, while Clinton would make you think about policy. Obama sounds great when he talks, a sharp departure from President Bush. Clinton, well, … not sucha great orator. After feeling horrible about our president for the last seven years, it’s easy to see why so many are drawn to the feel-good-guy.
The question is, do you want to feel good about America, or nominate someone who will make the best policy decisions to do the most good for America?
And funny enough, the greatest ‘Change’ would be with Clinton.
For one, Clinton gives you specifics on what she’ll do and has a greater command of the policy issues, which are the real change agents in government.
Secondly, Obama’s health care plan does not force everyone to have coverage (politically safer), while Clinton’s health care plan ensures everyone is covered. Everyone in America.
Third, historically, African-Americans tend to get things first in America before women, such as the right to vote (or their own Starfleet Command, with Benjamin Sisko before Kathryn Janeway). Electing a woman before an African-American would be a greater change.
Fourth, a former First Lady running for president trumps a senator in the change department.
Fifth, having a former president be a First Gentleman is a unique change as well. In so many ways, the real change is with Clinton, not Obama.
Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, the netroot activism is strong in the Democratic party this election cycle with both Obama and Clinton. If Clinton gets the nomination, netroot support will shift to her (as happens with every Democratic nominee). While this is true with both Clinton and Obama, it’s important to note that the ‘change’ associated with the netroots are, in the end, historically party minded over specific candidate minded.
It’s true that Clinton is running as the anti-Bush while Obama is running as the un-Bush, but we need to fix things before we can move beyond them. Clinton’s great debate line is dead on: It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it’ll take another Clinton to clean up after this one.
She’s right.
Obama’s message of fresh unity is enticing to many–especially those who have not payed much attention to politics in the past, or this is their first time truly participating in the political process–yet the man behind the message has potential trap doors for Democrats. Will America trust him when the have no idea how he’ll respond to situations? Will he take his unity message so far that he treds on Democratic principles in order to compromise with Republicans? You know Clinton won’t.
America has a chance to responsibly run in the opposite direction of Bush’s horrendous policies with Clinton. With Obama, you can’t be as sure. Those who don’t take the time to investigate policy tend to vote on personality, which is inadvisable, risky, and frankly, selfish to the country.
There’s also the expectations game, a cornerstone of politics. When Obama eventually runs into political roadblocks even he can’t hurdle, Americans are going to be let down. With such high expectations, we might just feel worse when he cannot do what he says he wants to do. With Clinton, there is an erroneous perception that she would be the status quo, causing the changes she makes as president to seem even better. So not only is there a greater change with Clinton as president, but we could feel better about the changes too.
Obama makes me feel good too. But I want a president who will do the most good for the country and bring the most change, not just make my toes tingle.
With a greater sophistication and understanding of issues and polices that truely change America, Hillary Clinton would clearly make the best president.
*
As for which candidate would be toughest for the Republicans, here’s what Bush’s Brain had to say:
See also:
- Clinton Vs. Obama, For Those With Short Attention Spans
- Obama Wins Iowa & the Speech That Started It All
- Brains Vs. Bravado: Hillary Vs. Bush on the ‘War on Terrorism’
- Clinton vs. Obama: California Democratic Debate Firsts 1/31/08
- Without Hillary Clinton, Dems May Lose Their Anchor
- Hillary Clinton Claims She Can See Invisible
More on 2008 Election, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Politics
http://www.relentlessevilsnowflake.com/blog/2007/08/kitchen_academy_day_eleven.html
http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/11.16.07%20Clinton%20vs.%20Obama/clinton_obama_2.jpg
Stumble it!
Not buying it. Your argument assumes that change comes from the top down. But in reality you can’t get anything done if you don’t move the people.
Many of our greatest leaders where great orators. It is a great tool to use to rally the people and move your policies forward. If you can make people feel good you can make them move toward your policies. Being a good orator is not a negative or a positive but in it is the necessity of every great reform movement.
Just saying…
I think it’s silly to say Obama doesn’t have specifics on issues. You can disagree with his position on issues, but saying he doesn’t have any is ignorant.
Also, I think Obama has better issues in an area that really matters to me: technology.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full elected term (6yrs.), plus another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. Fifteen of those are rather insubstantial, but she did get twenty passed.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I’ll post them here for you.
The other five of Clinton’s bills are definitely more substantive.
There you have it, the facts straight from the Senate Record.
Now, I would post those of Obama’s, but the list is extensive, so I’ll mostly summarize to save time and space. During the first (8) eight years of his elected service Barack Obama sponsored over 820 bills, including:
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.
I’m not suggesting Senator Clinton can’t be a damn fine President. And like those financial prospectus warnings, past performance doesn’t necessarily predict future outcomes - but despite the sound-bites I’m more impressed with the productive, often bi-partisan accomplishments to Obama’s credit. That’s who I see doing the most, as well the most good.
Clinton clearly is the best choice. Obama espouses change. It will continue to be a big change for him if he is nominated. Perhaps a larger home..gift..of 800,000 (ABC News, Boston Globe) from his crooked donor, loosen up all nuclear regulations so he can get more money from Exelon (NY TIMES), maybe he can pass on 130 more votes to help children and protect them (Illinois State Record). If that isn’t good enough for the rock concert candidate..perhaps he can miss even more votes in the US Senate. Yes, change is his mantra..this week he has changed his view and decided he needs Latinos to help him, a month ago Jesse Jackson, an African American leader had to remind Obama that he is Black…so Obama sent his wife out to campaign for him (Wall Street Journal). He didn’t even have enough guts to stick up for the Jenna 5. Sad. Those kids were clearly the victims of racism. Obama changed from Black to neutral..again..This man with no courage-no integrity-but fully armed by the all white top tier of his campaign committee..no blacks, Latinos or otherwise..is the man…the run a way train. I wouldn’t get on that train if it were the last place on earth. I am sick of liars and cheats disguised as ‘good’ guys. I will continue to send Hillary Clinton every dime I have that I can legally. Emily’s List after that. If she does not win I will vote for McCain as he is a man of integrity which means more to me than a great speaker.
It’s not that he doesn’t have a stand on issues, it’s that his ’stand’ is often a solution, not an answer (Ie: Abortion. He’s not for banning it or allowing it, he’s for giving you so many better options that you don’t want to abort). He’s got answers to everything, as you can see by perusing his page. It’s a Clinton myth that fortunately, most people aren’t falling for. There’s not an issue out there that he hasn’t got a solution for, however the Clinton campaign tries to convince you otherwise by showing you his non-vote history (since he often picks the side that gives solutions which entails you maintaining your freedoms, not bans or permissions)
Just a casual reader, but why does every HRC supporter say that Clinton’s plan “ensures that everyone will be covered”? Am I unaware of the most efficient enforcement mechanism in all of history? Let’s be absurd and suggest as enforcement that she has everyone without insurance killed (probably more efficient than the possible garnishing of wages), there still will not be 100% compliance. Her plan is not universal in the sense that there will never be 100% compliance, so it will not ensure that everyone is covered. Unless she proposes socialized medicine, a public sponsored single payer system with automatic enrollment, then there is no universal healthcare. She is just using the buzzwords to rile fools. As for her “specifics” and being a self-proclaimed “poliy wonk”, why do bloggers use these nebulous terms, but never provide substance? This is the near universal response to her lacking charisma relative to Obama, but is never supported with facts.
barack obama mike huckabee vs machine
huckabee obama:
we understand your disgust.
subversion of democracy.
know this:
gravel kucinich paul nader
will fight any ticket
with clinton or mccain on it.
your eyes & ears are open…
Mike Gravel Dennis Kucinich Dr Ron Paul Ralph Nader
united by truth elicit fear smear blacklist.
Too many lies,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.
Honesty compassion intelligence guts.
No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.
Philip, I’ve been wondering the same myself. Though I wouldn’t call the people fools who believe her “universal” health care claims. I think she’s banking on busy people trusting her and not noticing “the specifics” of her plan. I was seriously considering her, but when I found out her plan simply meant people would be universally mandated to purchase their own health policies, I was completely disappointed.
I saw the debates so far and Obama always gives specifics, like they all do.
Well said and I agree.