I'm so disappointed with Bill Clinton these days. I was never a big fan - I never voted for him - but have thought his legacy was a decent one, especially compared to the man who followed him. But he's destroying it, with his race-baiting, unethical tactics against Obama. Him dismissing yesterday's Obama victory by saying, "Well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice" was so disappointing and - yes - racist that it turns my stomach. The Clintons are relying on racial polarization to win, and I really, really hope that it fails, because it says so much about America if it does fail. There's no difference between what they're doing and what Karl Rove and George W. Bush did with wedge issues like gay marriage back in 2004.
I wonder how Feb. 5 will play out now that Obama handed the Clintons this ass-whooping down in SC. Obama's speeches continue to be amazing testaments to the power of people coming together and, yes, of hope:
NL Notes: Amarista, Nationals, Morse, Krol
-
Here are a few National League notes as we head into the weekend: Padres utilityman Alexi Amarista has switched his representation to Martin Arburua, tweets ...
2 hours ago
5 comments:
I haven't decided yet whether I prefer Clinton or Obama for the Democrats. I would probably be reasonably happy with either of them.
The one thing that makes me hesitate about Obama is that I feel like I still don't really know anything about him. I've watched most of the debates at this point, listened to his speeches, and I find him inspiring. But at the end of the day, I really can't tell you what policies he specifically supports. He's like water - inoffensive and nice, but you can't nail him down on anything. I can't say for certain, "He's for this, against that," because he seems to never take a position -- just speaks of change without specifics. With Hillary, I feel like at least she comes out and says it. She's more of a traditional politician than he is, and so maybe less inspiring and shiny. But I think she's also a very smart, down-to-earth lady who would do a great job.
Anyway, I like them both, but that's just my concern with Obama.
My advice: do a little research. Obama has written two books. Clinton has, too. Don't just watch the speeches; if you're feeling hesitant, seek more.
My inclination towards Obama has more to do with the policies and beliefs he lays out in Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope than his speeches. I mean, Mike Huckabee makes some pretty great speeches...
I kinda felt the same as you (although I did vote for him), but I am not surprised at the bare-knuckles (putting it as scout-like as I can) tactics of the Clintons. My candidate of choice back then was Paul Tsongas, who had a campaign just barely hanging on by its nails financially. A few unsubstantiated claims of dubious veracity were dropped into the fray and he soon had to suspend activity even before he got to my home state's primary.
BTW, yu beat me to the punch as I was going to email you or post the news about Caroline to you. Even bigger in political weight (though possibly not so much in other ways) are the rumors that Unca' Teddy up in MA is going to endorse Obama.
-The Chaplain
I agree that reading their books would be informative. Hopefully I'll have time to do so. The problem is, many people don't have the time to read every candidate's book (not to mention those without the inclination!). That's why getting values and specific policies across during the many speeches and debates is extremely important. I think it should be a high priority for any candidate who has the gumption to unblinkingly stand by what he/she believes in.
Probably you've seen the NYT endorsements (the Democratic one is here if you haven't: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?pagewanted=print).
Part of the editorial kind of expresses my ambivalence:
"The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern."
I'm a little concerned that Obama still isn't saying much that I can hang my hat on.
Anyway, I think of this sort of like dating and marriage. Now is the time for close questioning. The general election would be the time for full-hearted admiration and support.
I think those who don't believe Obama has offered enough specifics - including the NY Times - are giving too much credit to the years in the public eye Hillary Clinton has had. Obama's positions are clearly stated in his speeches and on his website. If someone is not willing to give him a chance because of lack of specifics, then I don't think they'd ever give someone who hasn't spent much time on the national stage a chance. We'll just get the same old, same old, then (and, if voters do vote for Hillary at this stage in the game, they're certainly showing they're happy with the "same old, same old" tactics). I'm not sure what else Obama can do if writing two books about his positions isn't enough. He has very clear positions; saying he doesn't have any simply isn't accurate.
I don't put any stock in the NY Times endorsement, though, because, of course, they're the home newspaper of Ms. Clinton. And saying they hunger for a change from bi-partisan politics in a statement of support of Hillary Clinton is contradictory.
Post a Comment