![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
As many of you know, there's a presidential primary on Tuesday in a number of states, including New York. I'm a registered Democrat. Right now, in New York, that means my choices are Clinton and Obama (in this state, you can only vote in the primary of the party you're registered in--I had a teacher in high school who always voted Republican but was a registered Democrat, because the Republicans seldom had primaries).
I was going to vote for Edwards, but he has withdrawn from the race. Neither Clinton nor Obama strikes me as absolutely wonderful (or I would have been supporting that one already). I'm open to suggestions about who I should vote for. Preferably based on policy (voting records and/or consistent statements by the candidates, not "this guy who supports $candidate said X once" or "s/he looks like s/he would do thus-and-such"). Don't bother telling me that other people have endorsed someone--if you're someone I know and like, your endorsement means more to me than that of a Kennedy, or your state legislator, or your favorite newspaper, even if all you have is a hunch.
I was going to vote for Edwards, but he has withdrawn from the race. Neither Clinton nor Obama strikes me as absolutely wonderful (or I would have been supporting that one already). I'm open to suggestions about who I should vote for. Preferably based on policy (voting records and/or consistent statements by the candidates, not "this guy who supports $candidate said X once" or "s/he looks like s/he would do thus-and-such"). Don't bother telling me that other people have endorsed someone--if you're someone I know and like, your endorsement means more to me than that of a Kennedy, or your state legislator, or your favorite newspaper, even if all you have is a hunch.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Whichever one wins would do a good job, in my opinion.
From:
no subject
The sense of entitlement that pervaded the Clinton campaign put me off from the start. Also, what seems to be a realpolitik perspective with regard to the war. I understand realpolitik, I understand that Shrub has deliberately put us in a situation from which it will be difficult to disengage, but she has yet to distance herself or apologize for her own votes that contributed to the situation.
On the other hand, she's probably a better hands-on manager and better at the nuts and bolts of governing.
Obama seems to be more inspiring. As for the lack of managerial inclination, that can probably be overcome; no matter who wins, they will need, and get, an immense amount of help from Democrats eager to step in and start undoing the last several years of damage.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
While not perfect at it, he also does have this tendency to try and keep political discussion on the issues, even in the middle of a campaign. This was particularly notable in the Senate campaign. No one's particularly excited that he beat Alan Keyes in a landslide--a half-chewed cat toy could beat Alan Keyes in a landslide. But he beat Alan Keyes without losing his temper, falling into name-calling, or being drawn into discussion of the faux-issues that are all Keyes ever talks about. That was pretty darn impressive.
He also (I just found out on Tom Smith's journal) got the founder of Creative Commons as one of his internet policy advisors.
From:
no subject
Obama's plan for Iraq is to begin immediately bringing troops home, "one to two combat brigades each month, and [...] all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." Clinton's plan is to have people draw up a plan. Also, Obama comes out strongly against permanent bases, while Clinton goes on about our strategic interests in the region.
Also, I think Obama is a little stronger on civil liberties. Obama said he'd support a filibuster of any FISA update that included telecom immunity, while Clinton sort of hemmed and hawed about not having seen the bill.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
My take is that both of them had similar voting records. Clinton has been in the Senate four years longer than Obama, but he has held elective office longer than Clinton, but she has been a political wife and is probably better versed in behind-the-scenes mechanations than he (for good or ill).
Both, I think, are intelligent and will surround them with advisors I would trust more than the current group of advisors to the Pres (which wouldn't be difficult).
I'm tending to lean towards Obama more than Clinton in part because she comes with the baggage of so many people who hold an irrational hatred for her. If she is elected, I'm afraid we'll se a resurgence of the politics of destruction the Republicans aimed at her husband and after eight years of that and eight more years of the Neo-con rule that followed, I really think what the US needs is some healing, which may be more likely under Obama.
I probably won't make a final decision until Tuesday when I enter the voting booth and am also open to arguments for either candidate (although, in truth, being in Illinois, birthplace of Clinton and currently represented by Obama, means that Obama will most likely win the state).
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I'd also like to give a great big smack to the Democratic Party establishment for the superdelegate nonsense and for disenfranchising Michiganders and Floridians, and they seem to be solidly behind Clinton. Really, who thought it was a good idea to go around making people's votes count less? Isn't that the opposite of what their position should be?
Plus Obama should be a more entertaining president. All the Clinton conflict is prescripted, and it doesn't look very fun.
From:
no subject
From the standpoint of someone outside the US... Clinton's support of the war puts her as a disadvantage in credibility in any future negotiations with the rest of the world. The rest of the world isn't willing to trust Clinton. She favors continuing the Cuban embargo, which is just political sillyness to appear moderate. Obama's on record as saying he'd be willing to sit down and talk, something Clinton's campaign attacked him for. Clinton's views on video game violence are a little dubious.
While Obama's not the perfect president, in the choice between him and Clinton, I'd chose Obama.
From:
Lightly informed comment from UK land
Is there likely to be an Obama/Clinton ticket at the 'real' election?
From:
no subject
Me, I'd probably go for Clinton because Obama is young enough to try again (or indeed spend a term or two as VP), but, see, I'm a good bit more progressive than either, so don't see giant differences.
From:
no subject
I have two problems with Clinton. First, her healthcare and war policies sucks. Second, even if she didn't get there because she's somebody's wife and even if it isn't "an end run around the 8 year rule", her enemies are going to say it is, loudly and repeatedly, and they're very good at saying things loudly and repeatedly and making people believe them.
I'd like you to elect someone who would restore minimum civil liberties for visiting foreigners. Obama seems most likely of those left in the race.
From:
no subject
He strikes me much more as a good man trying to do good. As opposed to Clinton, who strikes me more as a politician trying to get elected.
I like his rhetoric on the war much more than hers.
They both have health care plans. Hers looks a little better but I'm not naïve enough to think that anything like The Plan is what will be passed, so it's enough for me that they each think it is important enough that they have a plan.
I think they'll both do an OK job if elected: they're both very smart, and will be able to gather a good team. I think they both have some big stumbling blocks to getting elected; Clinton's a woman and she's got a name with some baggage, and Obama's got a funny name and dark skin. It sickens me that these things matter, but they do.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
My problem with deciding is that I like what Obama says, but I don't know that he'll do it, or be able to do it. I think Clinton will do things, but I may not like them. Caroline Kennedy compared Obama with her dad, but JFK was not president long enough to actually do much. He had a lot of words and plans, but who knows what would have happened if he'd lived? Basically, my idealistic side wants Obama and my practical side wants Clinton.
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
Obviously, I'll vote for the nominated Democrat, but I'll be less unhappy voting for Clinton. Obama has a lot of rhetoric, but when I see him gleefully piling on and claiming racism in comments where there wasn't any, I'm not reassured of his personal goodness.
From:
no subject
One thing to add: Clinton's been getting hit by the noise machine for over a decade now. I don't think she'll be underestimating the threat from that quarter.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject