Some of the other commenters on the thread touch on why it's flawed. I've made a few posts here and there about things on Obama's issues page. It's lots of pretty talk with little talk of how he'd get it done or details. And some of the pretty talk is stuff I don't much care for. Edwards called him out well on one of my top issues: health care. Obama claims he's going to get universal coverage. It says that on his site (or has in the past), but the details don't add up.
Obama hasn't shown himself to be a particularly effective legislator. I despite the loop-think that says he's an impressive leader because he's built this so-called movement behind his campaign. It's a cult of personality at this point. I also hate that I seem to be becoming a de facto Clinton defender when I'm not supporting her, but there's so much of this fluff out there about Obama that I can't resist. So what if Obama put out a bunch of pretty PDF pages of vague promises with no details about implementation?
See, I think the message that it's all fluff and there's no content is the snow job going on. I didn't look at them all, but the couple papers I compared side by side between Obama and Clinton led me to the conclusion that while BOTH candidates are high on promises and low on details, Obama was actually significantly better on the exact how. Seriously, don't make assumptions- go and compare. I'm not a fan of either. My pie in the sky candidate was Kucinich and my practical candidate Edwards. Looking forward though, I think Obama's got a better chance against McCain in the general. The Republicans have their candidate. The best thing we can do right now would to start rallying around the best opponent. Instead, we're assasinating ourselves. Insert pithy Will Rogers quote here.
I compared Obama to Edwards back in the day. That is still the standard Im holding the candidates to. The fact that Clinton is not any better is no excuse. However, when faced with two such candidates, Hillary has 16 years high profile and a 35 year overall overall record that I can use to judge and extrapolate on her policy suggestions.
If that's the case, isn't the issue one of lack of track record and not lack of substance? If he's got as much or more detail than Clinton, then saying "It's lots of pretty talk with little talk of how he'd get it done or details." feels like a snow job. I can respect being suspicious of Obama because as a neophyte, he's more of an unknown. But say that then and not that he's all talk, implying that Hillary isn't. For what it's worth, the specifics of her 35 year record are exactly why I'm swallowing my distaste and getting behind Obama. Given her civil rights record, I dread to think what kind of judge she'd appoint to the SCOTUS.
It took me an awful long time to draw and articulate this distinction: I don't think Obama is an empty suit. His use of vague, inspirational, all american rhetoric allows people to use him as a blank canvas onto which they can project their ideal candidate. In dozens of man on the street interviews, his supporters are only able to mouth the campaign's buzzwords as to why they support him. That leaves me afraid that his support is shallow and will crumble once he's in the job and proposing specific policies. A weak, one term progressive President could crush the left again for another generation.
I can see that concern. What's the alternative then? Do you think Clinton has a chance of being a strong two term President, or is it that it's better to lose 2008 and come on strong in 2012? Given the way the economy's headed, it might be worth letting a Republican take the rap for the inevitable recession. Four more years of right wing judicial appointees is a pretty high cost though, and the argument sounds suspiciously similar to a Nadar voter in 2000.
Do you think Clinton's electable? I look at the EC math and Obama puts states like Mississippi and Alabama back on the table in a way that Clinton doesn't. It could provide the balance against the overweight EC votes from Wyoming, Idaho and friends. Can you see a way for Hillary to beat McCain without a sweep of the populous, rust belt swing states (Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania) plus Florida?
Some of the other commenters on the thread touch on why it's flawed. I've made a few posts here and there about things on Obama's issues page. It's lots of pretty talk with little talk of how he'd get it done or details. And some of the pretty talk is stuff I don't much care for. Edwards called him out well on one of my top issues: health care. Obama claims he's going to get universal coverage. It says that on his site (or has in the past), but the details don't add up.
Obama hasn't shown himself to be a particularly effective legislator. I despite the loop-think that says he's an impressive leader because he's built this so-called movement behind his campaign. It's a cult of personality at this point. I also hate that I seem to be becoming a de facto Clinton defender when I'm not supporting her, but there's so much of this fluff out there about Obama that I can't resist. So what if Obama put out a bunch of pretty PDF pages of vague promises with no details about implementation?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Do you think Clinton's electable? I look at the EC math and Obama puts states like Mississippi and Alabama back on the table in a way that Clinton doesn't. It could provide the balance against the overweight EC votes from Wyoming, Idaho and friends. Can you see a way for Hillary to beat McCain without a sweep of the populous, rust belt swing states (Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania) plus Florida?
Reply
Leave a comment