Politics.
I follow politics pretty closely, but haven't really been posting much on it.
A year ago, I was pretty much a Hillary man. She had the experience and the policies most similar to mine, I suspected. Sure, she had the usual political nonsense positions that I suspected she took for pragmatic reasons (being in favor of the ridiculous flag-burning amendment, when that isn't really a hot issue any more? Fail.)
Still... something went wrong for Hillary. I'm not sure what. They tag her stumble on the Spitzer driver's license question a lot for the beginning of her decline, though that certainly isn't true for me (it was a silly question, and I'm totally for the idea, though I can understand wimping out and saying no). And I don't buy the arguments about her being Bush Jr. Yes, she's gone moderate in the Senate, but her history from beforehand indicates she's quite the liberal. Which I'm cool with. I also appreciate that as a woman, she's caught between annoying stereotypes - a columnist somewhere pointed out that "competent" women are usually considered "Iron Ladies" and soulless a la Lady Macbeth (see: Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, etc.), but warm/nice women are assumed to be hapless.
There are problems, however. I like her policies, I question her ability to lead due to factors often wholly beyond her control. Bringing the Clinton gang back won't bring in Democratic-leaning former Republicans who may still be instinctively bitter about the Clinton years. And to the rest of the world, the image of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton will look bad; we know that the elections were fair, but it looks fishy to people used to dynastic succession.
Here's the big thing. Hillary, while I think I mostly agreed with her on the issues before, is too much of a pragmatist. She's too willing to say whatever is required to get elected. How do I know she won't govern the same way? It's the same inauthenticity problem with Mitt Romney. Maybe she doesn't agree with me on the issues. And the way she's been sliding lately is if anything farther away from my positions. This is losing the one big thing she had going for her. I also have to question Hillary's famed experience somewhat. How much did she REALLY do in the White House? I've read reports that after health care blew up in her face, she was much more withdrawn. And health care was a disaster, no question. She's been a good senator so far... but that's different from being a good president.
Meanwhile, I've grown more respect for what Obama can accomplish. Check out this WaPo article on his time in the Illinois legislature: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Pretty interesting, I think. And while some people (read: Edwards supporters) seem to think Obama's lily-livered for wanting to "play nice" and talk with all sides... well, isn't that what the Dems want to do with foreign policy? Some of the most effective reforms have happened after you sit the industry down and say "okay, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Work with us, and it'll be the easy way." I think Obama has the steel to back up his threats and the silver tongue to get 'em through. Since drastically reducing carbon emissions is going to be a tough sell and perhaps be THE issue the future remembers our upcoming president by, he's the man I'd want on the front lines. I want somebody who can sell needed reforms to everyone rather than just push it through Congress by force.
Sometimes, the riskiest course is trying to play it safe. Hillary is a safety candidate. She won't suffice. To borrow the old "Great Man" theory of history... Hillary is not a Great Woman. Obama might be a Great Man. And in order to attempt to compensate for what Bush hath wrought, we need a Lincoln, we need an FDR, we need a Jefferson. All in; he's untested, but we need a big change, and Obama might offer that.
As for the debates tonight... I caught flashes of them. I was vaguely amused at Mitt Romney trying to hop on Obama's "the voters wanted change" bandwagon, and in an amazing coincidence, "change" is just what Mitt Romney has to offer! Still, it's better than Fred Thompson's humorless "Obama does whatever the liberal interest groups want" answer. Earth to Thompson: You want to try and draw in some of those independent voters to come to the Republican primary to vote for you. At least Romney does. These independents may also be tempted by Obama, so now isn't the time to get out the flamethrower (and it's not even a really good, or sensical attack either).
Meanwhile, Bill Richardson pulled a Fred Thompson and wants to immediately negotiate with the Soviet Union on nuclear weapons. I'm afraid "immediately" may not be fast enough. His reply in general was incoherent (the question was about a hypothetical terrorist attack on the US) that talked about greenhouse gasses and other rambling nonsense. Memo: Do not let this man near foreign policy. Clinton's answer wasn't much better; she sounded like GWB as she yabbered about stateless terrorists and conflated "where terrorists come from" with providing terrorist safe havens. Apparently we should threaten "strong retaliation" on any state that was found harboring terrorists, which strikes me as inplausible in the extreme - if we get hit by terrorists from Canada, does that mean we need to take down Ottawa City? I hope she was only referring to things like pre-2001 Afghanistan...
As another random comment, the NYTimes had an unusually incoherent editorial recently. It simultaneously decried the early Iowa & New Hampshire primaries as well as the amount of money spent there. Um... did you get the memo that Clinton & Romney *lost*? Or do you think that if there were many primaries all at once, candidates would inexplicably decide not to spend any money?! Say what you will, but having small states go first reduces the impact of money on the campaign. The $$$ is going to get spent anyway, but it won't matter as much. THere's some extremely sloppy thinking afoot here.
A year ago, I was pretty much a Hillary man. She had the experience and the policies most similar to mine, I suspected. Sure, she had the usual political nonsense positions that I suspected she took for pragmatic reasons (being in favor of the ridiculous flag-burning amendment, when that isn't really a hot issue any more? Fail.)
Still... something went wrong for Hillary. I'm not sure what. They tag her stumble on the Spitzer driver's license question a lot for the beginning of her decline, though that certainly isn't true for me (it was a silly question, and I'm totally for the idea, though I can understand wimping out and saying no). And I don't buy the arguments about her being Bush Jr. Yes, she's gone moderate in the Senate, but her history from beforehand indicates she's quite the liberal. Which I'm cool with. I also appreciate that as a woman, she's caught between annoying stereotypes - a columnist somewhere pointed out that "competent" women are usually considered "Iron Ladies" and soulless a la Lady Macbeth (see: Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, etc.), but warm/nice women are assumed to be hapless.
There are problems, however. I like her policies, I question her ability to lead due to factors often wholly beyond her control. Bringing the Clinton gang back won't bring in Democratic-leaning former Republicans who may still be instinctively bitter about the Clinton years. And to the rest of the world, the image of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton will look bad; we know that the elections were fair, but it looks fishy to people used to dynastic succession.
Here's the big thing. Hillary, while I think I mostly agreed with her on the issues before, is too much of a pragmatist. She's too willing to say whatever is required to get elected. How do I know she won't govern the same way? It's the same inauthenticity problem with Mitt Romney. Maybe she doesn't agree with me on the issues. And the way she's been sliding lately is if anything farther away from my positions. This is losing the one big thing she had going for her. I also have to question Hillary's famed experience somewhat. How much did she REALLY do in the White House? I've read reports that after health care blew up in her face, she was much more withdrawn. And health care was a disaster, no question. She's been a good senator so far... but that's different from being a good president.
Meanwhile, I've grown more respect for what Obama can accomplish. Check out this WaPo article on his time in the Illinois legislature: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Pretty interesting, I think. And while some people (read: Edwards supporters) seem to think Obama's lily-livered for wanting to "play nice" and talk with all sides... well, isn't that what the Dems want to do with foreign policy? Some of the most effective reforms have happened after you sit the industry down and say "okay, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Work with us, and it'll be the easy way." I think Obama has the steel to back up his threats and the silver tongue to get 'em through. Since drastically reducing carbon emissions is going to be a tough sell and perhaps be THE issue the future remembers our upcoming president by, he's the man I'd want on the front lines. I want somebody who can sell needed reforms to everyone rather than just push it through Congress by force.
Sometimes, the riskiest course is trying to play it safe. Hillary is a safety candidate. She won't suffice. To borrow the old "Great Man" theory of history... Hillary is not a Great Woman. Obama might be a Great Man. And in order to attempt to compensate for what Bush hath wrought, we need a Lincoln, we need an FDR, we need a Jefferson. All in; he's untested, but we need a big change, and Obama might offer that.
As for the debates tonight... I caught flashes of them. I was vaguely amused at Mitt Romney trying to hop on Obama's "the voters wanted change" bandwagon, and in an amazing coincidence, "change" is just what Mitt Romney has to offer! Still, it's better than Fred Thompson's humorless "Obama does whatever the liberal interest groups want" answer. Earth to Thompson: You want to try and draw in some of those independent voters to come to the Republican primary to vote for you. At least Romney does. These independents may also be tempted by Obama, so now isn't the time to get out the flamethrower (and it's not even a really good, or sensical attack either).
Meanwhile, Bill Richardson pulled a Fred Thompson and wants to immediately negotiate with the Soviet Union on nuclear weapons. I'm afraid "immediately" may not be fast enough. His reply in general was incoherent (the question was about a hypothetical terrorist attack on the US) that talked about greenhouse gasses and other rambling nonsense. Memo: Do not let this man near foreign policy. Clinton's answer wasn't much better; she sounded like GWB as she yabbered about stateless terrorists and conflated "where terrorists come from" with providing terrorist safe havens. Apparently we should threaten "strong retaliation" on any state that was found harboring terrorists, which strikes me as inplausible in the extreme - if we get hit by terrorists from Canada, does that mean we need to take down Ottawa City? I hope she was only referring to things like pre-2001 Afghanistan...
As another random comment, the NYTimes had an unusually incoherent editorial recently. It simultaneously decried the early Iowa & New Hampshire primaries as well as the amount of money spent there. Um... did you get the memo that Clinton & Romney *lost*? Or do you think that if there were many primaries all at once, candidates would inexplicably decide not to spend any money?! Say what you will, but having small states go first reduces the impact of money on the campaign. The $$$ is going to get spent anyway, but it won't matter as much. THere's some extremely sloppy thinking afoot here.