Feb 25
I’m torn on our two Dem candidates for several reasons, and I think I might just have to close my eyes and hit a button once I get to the voting booth. How’s that for being a responsible voter? I love Obama. I love listening to him speak and would love to get carried away with the same fever his followers seen to have caught.
I think he’s attractive, bright, and smooth—in voice and in manner, and although he’s lacking Clinton’s “35 years of experience” (snore), I think he sees through the crap and, perhaps ironically, may have better intuition about what we need right now as a country to get past the last several years of pain and suffering, that which we’ve inflicted on others and that which we’ve faced every time 43 opens his mouth.
Clinton, well, she’s been around the block. Do I respect the fact that she didn’t kick Bill’s ass after his indiscretions? I’m not so sure. Do I trust her? No. Is she prepared? Maybe, but will she be given a chance at all? I’ll leave off my annoyance at her voice, and the fact that she and McCain are nearly interchangeable to my leftist eye. Her voting record and experience do very little to inspire me, but I’m also not immune to her charms. She’s smart, and I like her new hair. She has done her homework.
My real dilemma isn’t who could be the better candidate. Each brings their strengths and weaknesses, and only time and history will tell how those helped or didn’t help the winning candidate. My concern is the situation that person will inherit. It’s a wretched mess, and not one with easy solutions, and it will be a shame to see the first minority/woman president saddled with problems that may have to get much worse before we can do any mending at all.
What will we do with the terrorists we have detained and/or created in Guantanamo? Is there really a way to pull troops out of Iraq now (please figure that one out soon—my brother leaves for his second tour in just a matter of weeks)? When, where, how will we maintain a presence just close enough to protect whatever groups remain in Iraq? Is it even possible to staunch the loss of jobs—and therefore control over fair labor and environmental protection—we’ve faced since the, ahem, Clintons brought us NAFTA, etc.?
There’s a lot more on my mind, but nothing that hasn’t been discussed in the comments in the past few weeks. But now I have to decide who deserves to inherit 43’s mess. Voters and ITPT faithful, whom will you choose for this opportunity?
It’s the chance for a woman or African American (or old white man) to prove her/his mettle as commander-in-chief, but it’s also one that starts off with such a huge, stinking mound of shit that the next president can’t avoid being mired in it.
The trackback URL is here.
Hillary’s campaign is in a free fall. The insiders are cutting each other up. So Obama is most likely the nominee. Without a major shift in public attitude, he, as the Democratic nominee will inherit the mess. Hopefully he’ll also get a decent mandate and majority in the Senate and House. Then give him a six month honeymoon if he follows Daschle’s counsel, which he will. That’s actually enough to reverse the most glaring problems…taxes, the war, and spending. That’s our system. It’s beautiful…when we participate, which is what is happening so far.
With all the interest and excitement generated by Texas’ newfound political relevance in 2008, I only wish Ann and Molly were still with us to share it.
Re: 2. Chilicook
Isn’t that the truth? I don’t really belive in an afterlife as such (YES I AM A LIBERAL HEATHEN), but it is fun to think of them somewhere looking down on all this and hootin’ and hollerin’.
Old white men? I resemble that remark.
Sorry, I cannot support Obama - John Kennedy had 14 years Congressional experience and served as an officer in the War. His family had been involved in politics for 50 years.
Not what I would call “limited experience.”
I did not support George Bush in 2000 because I did not believe he had the experience to serve as President –especially during a world crisis. It would seem to be hypercritical to now claim I believe Obama has the experience –he has even less than Bush.
Since writing my post, I’ve listened to (part of) the debate and attended the Obama rally on Friday, and especially after the debate favor Obama. Still, though, as reflected in my post, I’m unsure who I want to saddle with the potential black eye the current situation(s) will give the man or woman who enters office in January.
That said, though, Obama is the biggest departure from the past 20 years of policies, so as far as how this era will be seen 50 years from now, I’d say he’s the best bet. Even if change doesn’t happen, or even if his name is sullied in the mix, it’s likely that scholars and pundits will recognize his efforts to reverse course were well meaning even if they aren’t successful. That’s right. Hope is nice, but maybe not a reality. But, I’ll still go with hope. Just in case. Because I like the idea that things could be better.
Re: 4. Ben Quick
How does Obama have less expereince than Bush did? Bush was a one and half term governor of Texas, while Obama was in the Illinois Statehouse for that time and has been a U.S. Senator for part of a term, How is that less experience?
Sorry to fact check but don’t make false statements and use them as support for an argument to vote for or against a candidate. It makes me turn green and Angry and burst out of my clothes.
Re: 6. Lefty
Experience? Historians consistently rate Abraham Lincoln as the best (and most challenged and tested) president in our history. Old Abe’s prior political experience? Before his election in 1860, he’d served a single two year term as an Illinois congressman. He also lost an election for senate.
Although it’d be nice if the candidate for president actually knew his or her way to the nearest crapper in DC, should past experience in political office be the ultimate determining factor for voters? I could easily argue that with our current Congress, it could very well be a reason to avoid a candidate althougher.
Re: 7. Chilicook
It appears we have reached the point of violent agreement.
How many years did Bill Clinton spend in DC before he went to the White House?
First, comparing Obama’s state senator experience with that of an Governor (pick your state) is unintelligent and shows how little you understand the separation of powers and functions of the office. (Does this mean Mike Jackson is more experienced than Obama because he has more Senatorial experience – I’ll trust your fact checking skills to determine how much.)
I could argue, not counting 9/11 - Bush had adequate theoretical experience to be President - his handling of Katrina proves this hypothesis wrong, but I could argue that managing the second largest and most diversified state in the union provided adequate experience to run the day in day out bureaucracy in Washington D.C.
I never said I decided to vote for or against Abraham Lincoln or Bill Clinton because they had experience. However, 9/11 and the U.S.’s response is a starting point for deciding there may be a real need of experience (read understanding of the problems).
Re: 10. Ben Quick
So Obama’s 8 years as State senator and 4 years as U.S. Senator is LESS experience than GWB’s 6 years as TX-Gov? and anyone who disagrees is unintelligent and understands little about separation of powers and functions of the office?
Because that’s what you’ve said.
In your world how does that compare to Hillary’s experience as First Lady of Arkansas, First lady of the nation (”not of the state of california, the nation. Don’t touch that”) and her 8 years in the Senate?
Re: 10. Ben Quick
You voted for Abraham Lincoln? Oh, I’m sorry. That was an unintelligent question, wasn’t it? Pardon me.
So, I’ll ask this - now that we’ve established that experience is the key, are we to presume you’ll be voting McCain in November? He’s got lots and lots of experience.
Oh, wrong kind of experience? Ok. In that case, are we to presume you’ll be voting for Obama, since his record is widely regarded as closer to the Democrats’ platform than Hillary’s?
“Unintelligent” questions all, I’m sure.
Snark aside, my point is only that the “experience” thing is subjective and anyone could, at any time, argue for or against it as a virtue of a president.
Bill - no DC experience, good president.
Bush - no DC experience, bad president.
Besides, it’s not like Obama’s just coming in from some nonprofit. He’s got some DC time under his belt.
Hillary does, too. She may have him by a couple of years. But this 35-years crap is disingenuous. Most of her “experience” was watching her husband do his job.
Sleeping in the same building as the Oval Office is not the same thing as running it.