When it comes to the issues, let's be honest- the differences between Clinton and Obama aren't exactly huge. There's lots of Clinton supporters that keep insisting that Obama is offering promises without plans on how to accomplish them, yet if they went to his website they'd find a 60 page summary of his policy plans. Many of them differ from Clinton's plans, many are more or less the same. Both of them would be better than Bush (or McCain for that matter).
So what it comes down to is which one you feel you can support more. I personally have found several reasons I have trouble supporting Clinton, and only one major one with Obama.
Recently a bill was brought before the Senate that would give legal immunity to the telephone companies involved in the illegal wiretapping of US citizens. Obama and McCain went to vote (and voted against and for immunity respectively), Clinton didn't show up. She was campaigning in Texas. This may have been understandable (if not excusable) except for that fact that this was the day before the DC primary.
Which leads to how Clinton has been handling the primaries. She's more or less been ignoring the majority of states in favor of the ones with major amounts of delegates (Ohio and Texas, predominantly). She's criticized Obama for not debating her in Wisconsin, despite the fact that she's decided to barely campaign in Wisconsin at all. As far as the debates go, they're already scheduled for two more debates and have already participated in 18 (those numbers are off the top of my head, and may not be exact).
When Florida and Michigan broke the rules and moved their primaries, the DNC declared that their delegates would not be counted and asked the candidates to withdraw from the primary. All of the candidates did except Clinton. She stated that considering they wouldn't be counted there was no harm in running there. She won the state as the only name on the ballot (although there were apparently lots of write-ins). Now that she's behind in delegates she's been calling for those delegates to be counted.
Early on in the campaign people kept claiming that Clinton's advantage was here fund-raising skills, and no other candidate would be able to compete in that respect. Then the Clinton campaign ran out of money and the Clintons had to loan their own campaign $5 million. Earlier in the campaign Bill Clinton was quoted as saying that a candidate donating to their own campaign would "violate the spirit of campaign finance reform", although to be fair this was technically a loan and not a donation.
Lots of people keep making claims that you can't use something Bill Clinton says against Hillary, I call bullshit on that. She's using him as a campaign tool, claiming many of the things he accomplished in office as her own. Beyond that he's been representing her on the campaign. Clinton herself didn't come to Wisconsin to campaign, she sent Bill.
The one complaint I have with Obama isn't his lack of experience. As far as I'm concerned that's not an issue, if anything it's a benefit. There have been plenty of successful Presidents with his level of experience, and plenty of unsuccessful career politicians. Beyond that, as a Senator he's got to run now if he ever wants a chance of winning. Senators have to vote on so many bills that combine so many issues at once that if you stay in the Senate for too long you end up with a record that looks bad no matter what you do.
Which leads to the real problem I have with him- he's been doing the smart thing rather than the right thing when it comes to voting in the senate. If there's a bill that could be used as ammunition against him in the campaign, he's often been voting "present" rather than yay or nay, so his record doesn't show him supporting or opposing it. This prevents him from being labeled a flip-flopper like Kerry was in 2004, but could lead to him being labeled indecisive instead.
I could write all day, but I'll spare you unless you really want to debate the issue more. I'm supporting Obama on Tuesday, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt. All I know is that if Clinton wins the nomination I'd probably end up voting for her just to keep McCain out of office, but I'd have a hard time doing so.
So what it comes down to is which one you feel you can support more. I personally have found several reasons I have trouble supporting Clinton, and only one major one with Obama.
Recently a bill was brought before the Senate that would give legal immunity to the telephone companies involved in the illegal wiretapping of US citizens. Obama and McCain went to vote (and voted against and for immunity respectively), Clinton didn't show up. She was campaigning in Texas. This may have been understandable (if not excusable) except for that fact that this was the day before the DC primary.
Which leads to how Clinton has been handling the primaries. She's more or less been ignoring the majority of states in favor of the ones with major amounts of delegates (Ohio and Texas, predominantly). She's criticized Obama for not debating her in Wisconsin, despite the fact that she's decided to barely campaign in Wisconsin at all. As far as the debates go, they're already scheduled for two more debates and have already participated in 18 (those numbers are off the top of my head, and may not be exact).
When Florida and Michigan broke the rules and moved their primaries, the DNC declared that their delegates would not be counted and asked the candidates to withdraw from the primary. All of the candidates did except Clinton. She stated that considering they wouldn't be counted there was no harm in running there. She won the state as the only name on the ballot (although there were apparently lots of write-ins). Now that she's behind in delegates she's been calling for those delegates to be counted.
Early on in the campaign people kept claiming that Clinton's advantage was here fund-raising skills, and no other candidate would be able to compete in that respect. Then the Clinton campaign ran out of money and the Clintons had to loan their own campaign $5 million. Earlier in the campaign Bill Clinton was quoted as saying that a candidate donating to their own campaign would "violate the spirit of campaign finance reform", although to be fair this was technically a loan and not a donation.
Lots of people keep making claims that you can't use something Bill Clinton says against Hillary, I call bullshit on that. She's using him as a campaign tool, claiming many of the things he accomplished in office as her own. Beyond that he's been representing her on the campaign. Clinton herself didn't come to Wisconsin to campaign, she sent Bill.
The one complaint I have with Obama isn't his lack of experience. As far as I'm concerned that's not an issue, if anything it's a benefit. There have been plenty of successful Presidents with his level of experience, and plenty of unsuccessful career politicians. Beyond that, as a Senator he's got to run now if he ever wants a chance of winning. Senators have to vote on so many bills that combine so many issues at once that if you stay in the Senate for too long you end up with a record that looks bad no matter what you do.
Which leads to the real problem I have with him- he's been doing the smart thing rather than the right thing when it comes to voting in the senate. If there's a bill that could be used as ammunition against him in the campaign, he's often been voting "present" rather than yay or nay, so his record doesn't show him supporting or opposing it. This prevents him from being labeled a flip-flopper like Kerry was in 2004, but could lead to him being labeled indecisive instead.
I could write all day, but I'll spare you unless you really want to debate the issue more. I'm supporting Obama on Tuesday, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt. All I know is that if Clinton wins the nomination I'd probably end up voting for her just to keep McCain out of office, but I'd have a hard time doing so.
Reply
Leave a comment