I disagree strongly with your vague criticisms of Clinton's health care plans, and frankly I question your decision to describe "friends involved in medicine" as "sources you trust". Universal health care is currently my single biggest voting issue, and as far as I can tell is Obama's worst position. His "if we make it affordable people will get it" has never rung true for me.
I've been trying to find the paper by Jonathan Gruber referenced in the article available online without success so far, as I'd like to read it myself. But in trying to find it, I have found lots of information on Jonathan Gruber himself, and its built my trust in him substantially.
All that said, I'm currently on the fence. I'd rather have Clinton, but if the election were today clearly Obama would have a better chance of beating McCain. That said, I feel like Clinton's dirt is all very public and everyone knows about it. I worry about her ability to win generally, but I'm not afraid something bad is going to come out during her campaign. Obama is a bit of a black hole, and therefore very susceptible to swift boating.
How do you decide between a candidate you favor but are afraid can't win, and a candidate that might have a better shot.
I'm considering abstaining from the caucus as a 50/50 vote for Clinton/Obama.
Ultimately I decided that McCain was the least bad republican I've seen in a long time, so "Not the other guy" was not my most significant voting issue (as it usually is), so I voted for Clinton.
That said, I feel like Clinton's dirt is all very public and everyone knows about it.
One interesting thing I've noticed about many Clinton supporters is how they assume that every candidate must have some kind of horrible negatives and that compromising your principles is a necessary part of the political game.
I think the most attackable thing about Barak is also something that is a big strength, which is the significant amount of time he's spent outside of the US, especially when he was very young. It's possible (probably even likely) that Republicans will use this to imply that he's not 'one of us', which is their biggest way of getting people on their side.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/349990_krugman05.html
I've been trying to find the paper by Jonathan Gruber referenced in the article available online without success so far, as I'd like to read it myself. But in trying to find it, I have found lots of information on Jonathan Gruber himself, and its built my trust in him substantially.
All that said, I'm currently on the fence. I'd rather have Clinton, but if the election were today clearly Obama would have a better chance of beating McCain. That said, I feel like Clinton's dirt is all very public and everyone knows about it. I worry about her ability to win generally, but I'm not afraid something bad is going to come out during her campaign. Obama is a bit of a black hole, and therefore very susceptible to swift boating.
How do you decide between a candidate you favor but are afraid can't win, and a candidate that might have a better shot.
I'm considering abstaining from the caucus as a 50/50 vote for Clinton/Obama.
Reply
Reply
Ultimately I decided that McCain was the least bad republican I've seen in a long time, so "Not the other guy" was not my most significant voting issue (as it usually is), so I voted for Clinton.
Reply
That said, I feel like Clinton's dirt is all very public and everyone knows about it.
One interesting thing I've noticed about many Clinton supporters is how they assume that every candidate must have some kind of horrible negatives and that compromising your principles is a necessary part of the political game.
I think the most attackable thing about Barak is also something that is a big strength, which is the significant amount of time he's spent outside of the US, especially when he was very young. It's possible (probably even likely) that Republicans will use this to imply that he's not 'one of us', which is their biggest way of getting people on their side.
Reply
Leave a comment