Clinton vs. Obama

Choose not to choose. (Rush would say you still have made a choice, though).

That's how I played it. Clinton as POTUS, Obama as VPOTUS.

Wonder twin powers ACTIVATE!

Here on my thoughts on why Obama will beat the Republican nominee (Mcain?). Obama gets a lot of votes from independents and crossover republicans (despite being rated the most liberal senator). For example, Susan Eisenhower has endorsed Obama for president. I believe that these votes, in addition to the standard democratic voters, will propel him to victory in November, while Clinton will not pick up the extra base of support that Obama has. I'm not saying that Clinton won't win, just that Obama is more likely to.

Just my 2 cents.

Be careful which "Rush" you are referring to here, Sniderman.

I think you may be over-thinking this a bit, Greg. You are suffering from horserace-overdose, and the only cure is to vote for Gravel.

Let the chips fall where they may on the Presidential race. Remember you are going to caucuses for Al Franken, that's the most important thing.

If you read Obama's book The Audacity of Hope, specifically the chapter on faith, I think it's very helpful to those of use in scientific fields.

His strong position on reason and logic-based decisions are what sold me.

He does identify as a "Christian." However, as he explains, it is an identification based on his particular community's ability to proactively help their area and people -- not something involving spirits talking him into converting.

His mother's atheism taught him a great deal and he was raised in an open enviornment with the freedom to be logical about nature without the supernatural.

I've been going through many of the same considerations and am also still up in the air.

However, there are a couple of things you haven't taken into account. First, all of the Democratic primaries award delegates proportionately. The likelihood of either Clinton or Obama coming out a clear winner on Tuesday is quite small.

Secondly, even though polls show Obama doing better against McCain, that's more along the lines of the popular vote. The big consideration should be which of the Democratic candidates has a better chance of winning the electoral vote. I did a rough count a couple days ago and figured there's about 237 (out of 538) electoral votes that Obama has almost no chance of winning. That would essentially require him to win just about all of the "toss up" states -- PA, Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin, Colorado, Oregon, and Virginia.

Of course, in my state (NY), how I vote in the primary won't mean much.

I'm caucusing for Clinton. Both are equally far from my real position that its like looking at two people a block away. So I'm going for Clinton on experience and the fact that I want a woman to be president.

But really, my choice for president is between a black man or a white woman? Would you like cake or pie? A free trip to Maui or a free trip to Jamaica? Well gosh.

I suppose your think/feel dichotomy isn't totally wrong. And, as an Obama backer, I'd point out that voters tend to make their choices based on feelings, rather than a detailed analysis of policy positions.

There's a degree to which that's just disappointing laziness on their parts. The candidates have the whitepapers out there, and perhaps more voters should read them.

Then again, those voters are onto something important. There's only so much a president can do or plan for. No one can know what the situation in Iraq will be a year from now, as the next president is inaugurated. We don't know what the economy will look like, and we don't know who will be in Congress. Those 535 people will have a lot to say about any health care plan that the next prez proposes, and about Iraq, the economy, the environment, etc., etc., etc.

What matters, then, is not the ability to lay out detailed plans a year ahead of time, but the ability to pick your fights, to stand firm against bad ideas, to insist on good ideas, and to be prepared to give and take to bring people on board behind a good plan when it emerges, or to kill a bad one.

There's not really a way to know ahead of time which candidate will do that most effectively. Judgment on the authorization to invade Iraq, or a record of passing progressive legislation in a state or federal legislature can help, but in the end, it really is all about feeling.

Feeling is how you swing a couple of moderate Republicans in the Senate to vote with you to break a filibuster. It's how you get a reticent committee chair to bring a tricky bill to a vote, and it's how you shepherd that bill through various negotiations, and pass it cleanly, with the key provisions intact.

Hillary's divisive tendency (which is not entirely her fault, though her inability to defuse that division may be) will work against her not just in the election, but in fights with Congress. Moderate Republicans will know that resisting "Hillarycare" or whatever other asinine names they cook up for her policies, they can score points with their voters. The same calculus doesn't apply as deeply with Obama. In 2006, he was the most popular Senatorial campaigner for candidates in red/purple states like Missouri, helping Democrats retake the House and Senate.

Gravel.

But seriously, now that Edwards is gone, I'm faced with the same decision. And since their positions are the same for all practical purposes, I'm trending towards Hillary. They're both centrist, corporate shills and it kills me that this is the best so-called "progressives" can come up with, but at least Hillary is an unholy bitch who pisses off Republicans. The last thing we want now is to choose a candidate that conservative morons like. The fact that Clinton sends conservatives into strange conniptions makes me like her. To be the first woman to make it as far as she has involves putting up with a lot of shit and playing dirty, and right now, I like that. I don't want compromise, I don't want bi-partisan bull-shit, I want blood.

It's good the see the Dems have two strong candidates.

The main benefit of having Dems in the White House will probably be the that Dems don't prefer always being engaged in full-on hot wars as the GOP does.

Basically the policies will remain the same. The Dems also might make more room for climate-change technologies to flower a bit more.

As far as justice goes, we won't get it. Neither Clinton or Obama has any interest in uncovering and prosecuting crimes and ethics violations of Bush and Cheney.

It's a horrible, terrible, awful defeat for America that those two won't be prosecuted and their crimes made public. It's one of the worst historical mistakes this country will ever make, because by doing so we turn our backs on the important lessons the country needs to learn from the last seven years.

We won't look at those lessons, and it will come back to bite us sooner than we think.

I hope we have Dem White house, but really for me it's just choosing the lesser of two evils.

Dems talk populist; they always have. But I'm pretty sure it will be the same old lobbies financing candidates of their choosing and demanding favors, tax breaks, and legal loopholes in return, just as always.

And both Hillary and Obama are part and parcel of that system. Neither one is an outsider, and neither is interested in bringing the real, deep, structural change that is needed to change the way national politics is corrupted today.

If they were interested in change, they'd start by having international monitoring of the elections. Then there would be a full on investigation of the Bush Administration, with people like Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich in charge of the investigation. Cheney and Bush would be held responsible, and tried as charged criminals if found to have violated US or international law, or exposed for having failed to uphold their oath to function according to the US Constitution.

But Obama won't do that. Neither will Clinton.

There is no candidate of change. There are only candidates who talk about change. And it has always been that way.

One thing that may be considered in the possble McCain vs. Clinton or Obama is the effect a McCain candidacy will have on the Republican Party bigwigs. They really don't like McCain. A quote from this article in SAlon

When Republican Rob Haney goes door to door to stump for candidates, he asks them to rate John McCain on a scale from 1 to 10. "The people who don't know much about politics rate him a 9 or 10," says Haney, who is a state party chairman in Arizona's 11th Legislative District. "The people who know what's going on rate him a 1 or a 2, or ask, 'Can I rate him a minus?'"

It seems that the visceral dislike for McCain might be more likely to be overcome with a Clinton candidacy than an Obama candidacy. Whichever candidate the D's select, they had better emphasize McCain's 100 years in Iraq and his toadying to W. Hammering on that kind of meme will be more effective than anything else with the independant vote.

The political skills that Clinton and Obama apparently have may also be fairly equal. Despite the feelings of the R base towards Clinton, the many of the R members of the Senate have respect for her since they know her better, maybe more so than Obama.

And take a look at This Modern World @ Salon

yes you can! ;-)

I don't think either of them will lose. However, I think Obama is a better choice based on his record number in youth vote. Honestly, if that many people vote in all the different areas it will have secondary effects in terms of house and senate seats. For example, I live in California and there's almost no reason for me to vote in the general election because my state is going to support the Democratic nominee. However, there are other races which bringing people to the polls is going to be very very useful for. Also, I think some people honestly hate Clinton and even if they have no chance whatsoever of turning the election they might just go to the polls to vote against her. That's bad for the races down the way.

Despite the whole, I love hope and optimism and will support the most politically left candidate who stands a chance at winning. I think Obama has major coattails which I believe Clinton might lack.

Throughout the Clinton years, I was a big Hillary supporter. But I have never liked Senator Clinton. She's far too much of a hawk, and the last thing we need right now is another warmonger...even if it's just a character she plays in the Senate. I consider her vote on the Iraq war a sign of weakness - that vote was made as a political calculation, and the fact that she still stands by it is a disturbing sign. I'm disappointed with both of their stances on gay marriage. Again, I consider that position cowardly. But there's no such thing as the perfect candidate. Hillary could easily be a better president than Bill.

But I'm solidly behind Obama for another reason. It isn't because I think he's more electable - although I honestly believe that he would be better in the election (he inspires people; he appeals to independents and younger Republicans on the basis of who he is. Either of them will get the votes of the Democratic base, but I believe that Obama will be better at attracting votes from outside that group.) It isn't because I find him more inspiring than any politician I can remember (although I do). It's because of things like this article on from DHinMI at dKos, and this post from Josh Rosenau.

I believe that Obama embodies a possibility for change. A political leader gets things done when s/he steps in front of a groundswell, one that I believe is building. Hillary could be an effective president. I think Obama could be something more, a once-in-a-generation figure.

Well, there's what the public wants. Then there's what the candidates think the public wants. Then there's what the media thinks the public wants.
Obama must convince voters of toughness
Right, so maybe he'll eat a live bug on stage; that would do it.

Like Greg, I'm more or less undecided. But at the moment I'm leaning Obama. Why? It's not that I dislike Hillary. I don't. I certainly didn't have it in for her husband --- I voted for him at the time. The problem with Hillary is, because of Bill, she carries a considerable amount of "baggage", which I fear the "Rethuglican" machine will do everything it can to exploit. And the way things are going, I have a horrible feeling that we'll end up with a President McCain or Romney if she is chosen as the Democratic nominee.

The other problem I have with Hillary is her connections, especially with the Democratic Leadership Council. This is more or less where she(and Bill) got their "centrist", rather "do-nothing" policies, and the DLC is essentially one of the reasons the Democrats are so timid right now.

For all his faults, e.g. the hot air of hope he blows, Obama doesn't seem to have these connections. I will emphatically add here, I really don't care what biological sex the president is, nor do I care what color of skin he or she will be wearing on Inauguration Day. But I do care about the direction this country has been going in, and it isn't pretty. And, unfortunately, the so-called "conservatives", headed by the present occupant of the White House, have been leading our country down this dangerous path. So I will vote for whatever Democrat the the Democratic Party selects, and I will work for him or her. But I just happen to think Obama stands a better chance of actually getting to the White House. I don't know what he'll do when and if he gets there, but it would hardly be surprising if his presence helps lead the United States out of the morass into which it is presently mired.
Anne G