Right, so I now live (most of the time) in Indiana. We're up next, along with North Carolina, in the presidential primary spotlight. I've been getting multiple mailings every day, we've got ads on TV, the cities are being visited by major players; while I'm new to Indiana and am coming from the battleground state of Wisconsin, this is apparently a new experience for most Hoosiers.
So, as we progress through the last weekend before the primary on Tuesday, how am I thinking about who to vote for?
Let me first make a disclaimer which otherwise should be obvious: I'm a Democrat.
How do I want to vote? Based on issues, of course, what else? But I find it increasingly difficult to figure out what the main candidates positions on the issues are. Watching the candidates on TV doesn't help - I feel I'm being hosed by overly practiced and schooled rhetoric in debates and interviews. Instead I find myself relying on digested interpretations of candidates' positions (and who do you trust to interpret?), and valuing all that other "character" or "electability" stuff that otherwise makes me gag when the media talk about its impact.
So here's part of the conversation I'm having with myself. In no particular order.
I love love love that we have a woman who is actually a viable candidate. I want to support that. But that is voting as though the simple fact that Clinton is a woman means that we will agree on issues, and that is not something that should be taken for granted. There are all kinds of right-wing women with whom I vehemently disagree. So that's not enough.
And in fact, I hate hate hate the fact that Clinton voted in favour of the war in Iraq. Particularly that. But I believe she has been running for president ever since she got elected for Senate, and I wonder, how many of her votes have been in order to counteract the criticism she would face when running for president? If she wanted at the point of that vote to run for president, I don't know if she could have voted no. That would have been the kiss of death for a woman presidential candidate -- everyone, everyone would have pointed to that vote as evidence for why she, as it were, didn't have the mangoes to be president. How many other votes were the same?
I like Clinton's healthcare plan better than Obama's. I think the closer we get to a universal healthcare system, the better -- Clinton's mandate for everyone to enroll is going to work better than Obama's, I think. But, as a friend pointed out to me, neither of the plans will get passed the way they look now. So who do I believe will do a better job getting more of it through? Back to whatever beliefs I have about character, again. Now, is that any way to decide my vote?
I was also worried - if I voted for Obama, when would be the next time that a woman candidate had such a good chance? Then I saw Michelle Obama speak, and that fear was allayed.
But I am still worried and amazed by how much the Republicans are mobilized by Clinton's potential candidacy. There's already a host of mainstream hate directed towards her - I cannot imagine how ramped up it will get. I strongly believe the US cannot survive another Republican president along the same lines as Bush II. But again, is that a reason to overlook what candidates actually stand for?
I find listening to and reading Obama inspiring in a way I don't find Clinton inspiring. Is that a good reason to vote for him and not her? And while I find myself inspired, I also find myself terrified that he is either going to break all of our hearts (as who can live up to the levels of optimism I see in my colleagues, friends and neighbors?), or that, and I hesitate to even write this, he's going to inspire violence in someone who will direct it back to him. God forbid.
I see Obama drawing Independents to him, and even some Republicans. Should that make me see him as electable, or as abandoning his Democratic positions? I can't figure it out.
I don't think either Obama or Clinton go far enough to address global warming. Is this another case of electability - does either want to do more but is toning it down in order to appease short-sighted business interests who don't see sustainability as the next potential boom?
I want to make decisions about who to vote for based on how the candidates value science, but despite the request for the AAAS and National Academies' Science Debate 2008 so far nothing has happened.
According to the New York Times, as well as their election websites, both candidates are pro-choice. But what about what Bitch, PhD said about Obama supporting parental consent laws? This is very very worrying. (Hat tip to ScienceWoman for the link.)
I think this idea of a gas tax holiday is idiotic. It was idiotic when McCain proposed it, and even more idiotic when Clinton jumped on the bandwagon. That was a strike against her, but so small in comparison to these bigger issues. I think it looks desperate - so would Obama have done the same thing if he were behind? I don't know, maybe.
I think the kerfuffle over Rev. Wright is also idiotic. Also over sniper fire in Bosnia, and flag pins, and ill-chosen words in Pennsylvania. People, we don't lack real content to talk about! When this petty and contrived distraction forms the news cycle, I'm not surprised we can't get a Science Debate.
I was impressed with Obama's speech on race. A point for him.
All of my family voted for Obama. Another point for him, 'cause I trust them.
I know this is a jumble of thoughts. And not a very organized post. But that's how I feel for this election, and I'm going to have to vote one way or the other on Tuesday. What my vote may be coming down to is, who do I feel will have a better chance at fixing the global and colossal mess we've made? Global warming, war, a tanking economy, global warming, global warming, war... And although Clinton has more experience, I'm not convinced that will be an advantage anymore.
I think either candidate will be better than McCain. I will vote for whichever Democrat runs in November. Right now, I think I'm going to vote for Obama. And I think Tuesday's elections will not settle anything.
- Log in to post comments
I was at a science policy seminar a week or so ago and asked the speaker (public science policy expert who has served on several committees and worked for NSF) what he thought of the candidates in terms of their support of science. He thought they were all three equally good and that the real question is who they will appoint as science adviser, which, of course, we don't know. Don't know if that helps you any.
Most of your argument sounds a lot like what goes on in my own head about these two candidates. I would add that Obama has also been an academic and makes me feel like he has some understanding of the academic environment and would support academic science and make good decisions about science in general. But maybe that's just wishful thinking.
The man seems like he understands the difference between faith and science.
Obama And Intelligent Design via Street Prophets: "I'm a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith. That doesn't make faith any less important than science. It just means they're two different things. And I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry." Full article here: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2008/4/7/152855/1678
Of course, as always, actions speak louder than words.
In the primary in my state, I ended up voting my hopes. I hope for an America where both women and people of color are viable candidates for president-- and (amazingly?) it looks like we've got that. But what excited me in New Hampshire in January was the energy and the optimism of the folks who supported Obama. I'd read about political idealism and joy and engagement, but I'd never seen it until then. When I voted for Obama, I was voting for the folks who support him.
Much as I hate to say this, electing *any* Democrat is more important this year than electing the candidate of your choice. If McCain gets elected in November, we're going to wind up with a Supreme Court with at least seven conservative justices, and it will take close to a generation to change that.
We all need to vote for the candidate we believe has the best chance of beating McCain, and unfortunately we're stuck with the two Democrats who, out of those who started the campaign, have the most baggage in terms of being able to bring in the votes of conservative Democrats, independents and liberal Republicans that will be needed to win.
The right wing hate machine and its captive media have been beating on Clinton since 1993, and they aren't about to stop. Unfortunately too, there are many conservative Christians (and many Mormons and Muslims) who will never vote for a woman. Likewise, the right wing hate folks are already doing their worst to make race an issue for Obama, and you can expect that to get much more intense if Obama is the nominee.
I like Obama too, but I'm totally unsure about who has the best shot at beating McCain.
Both candidates have an approximately equal shot at beating McCain in the fall (polls go back and forth). From a policy standpoint they are really close to each other on the political spectrum and and most issues. The differences in their health care plans aren't important because they aren't going to get their health care plans. The important thing is that they both want to change health care. The other differences (like the gas-tax) are mostly trivial.
I like Obama because he seems more open (transparent) and I've had enough opacity from the executive for the last 8 years. I would also like there to be a non-Bush or Clinton in the white house for the first time since I was 8 years old. However, the important thing is that the democratic nominee wins in the fall.
In the end, whom we all like at this point doesn't matter. Obama is going to win the nomination barring some massive wins by Clinton (at least 70% of the vote in all of the remaining constests and picking up nearly all of the remaining superdelegates). The math just isn't there for her - I encourage everyone to add it up for themselves.
The other possible point for Obama is that it is now virtually impossible for Clinton to with the nomination. The counts vary slightly, but you can look at:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index…
2025 delegates wins. Obama has 1733. There are 418 pledge delegates and 231 superdelegates remaining. Barring a total meltdown, with proportional system of awarding pledged delegates, Obama will definitely win at least 45% of the remaining delegates. 188 brings is total to 1921. Thus he would need 104 of the remaining 231 superdelegates to win. Again, barring a total meltdown, it's hard to imagine he won't get that.
It's a lousy way to think about it, but the real choice for Indiana is to choose Obama now or postpone his selection for another month or two.
I agree with chezjake that we need to vote for the candidate most capable of beating McCain. I also don't put much faith in current polls because they are (at best) current and not predictive.
I see this country electing an Obama-Clinton ticket sooner than electing Clinton-Obama. I think Obama reaches out more effectively to middle-of-the-road citizens, and that is the key.
I love the idea of a woman president, but even if Clinton winds up as VP this time around, hopefully she will have her shot in another 8 years. A woman VP and a black president is a huge step forward.
I think you are too apologetic for wanting to vote for "The Woman".
While it is true that the current administration gives us a little pause, 8 years (or 4 years) is not that long. Not when up against the 233 years without a woman (or black for that matter) President.
I am not kidding one bit on this next part. Remember when Condi still looked viable as a future Presidential candidate? If she'd been up against some white male democrat this time I would've voted for her despite a deep opposition to almost every policy she'd be most likely to have. The social import of the first black or female president is tremendous.
Fortunately your decision is between Democrats who really do not have a lot of major policy differences. If you think a woman president is more important than a black president for all of the social reasons, screw it. vote proudly for "the woman" because she's a woman.
What the hell do you think all that "electable" and "sit down and have a beer with" crap is anyway? total homie-voting. and yet it has been elevated to a legitimate criterion!
VOTE OBAMA!!!
:)
In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I am married to a Kenyan and have a biracial daughter. I love the idea that someone like my daughter could actually be president. I'm sure more strong women candidates will come along and I really feel like Obama represents more of a chance for real change (I hope).
I am impressed that Obama, from his own experience, knows and understands Islam much better than anyone in Washington. This strikes me as a very important matter. He opposed the war in Iraq because he knew how it would develop. It is perhaps too bad that the 1991 version of Dick Cheney is not available as a Republican candidate.
I have come to the same conclusion as you. . . . that no matter who comes out the winner. . . . they will be better than what we got. . . .
I will be disappointed if the convention doesn't elect the person we all voted for this year, but still will support the "winner".
I am concerned that a democrat is going to have to fix all this mess. It is so bungled. . . . I wonder how on earth we can ever come back to the center. . . you know diplomacy. . . no more cowboy wars. . . .
Ciao
my two cents...
first cent: I've always looked much, much more at policy than personality. The truth is, though, that the policy differences are fairly minor in this race. At some point the personality needs to factor in, though. Not because I care if I want to have a beer (or a shot of Crown Royal) with the president, but because the power of persuasion is important. There are different forms of persuasion. To me, Obama seems more likely to be able to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to great effect. Clinton seems quite talented at senate backroom deals, and I think she should continue that.
second cent: I don't feel like I'm being pandered to by Obama. I want someone willing to say that a gas-tax holiday is bad economics, not someone who dismisses valid economic criticism as "elite", as Clinton did yesterday. I'm not saying that she can't have a valid policy disagreement with some economists, but her retort doesn't seem to go far beyond painting economists as elitists.
I've been giving this a LOT of thought over the past few days...I've been a Clinton supporter for a long time (since all the candidates I really liked dropped out), but given all the points made above and others, I think I'm now leaning towards Obama. He has a pretty persuasive personality, and I'm afraid of what will happen to the Democratic party if the nominee isn't decisively crowned by the end of the primaries (and Obama's chances at that are better). At the same time, though, if he doesn't start winning some primaries, his stature as a viable candidate is going to be really hurting. What a tough decision...I don't envy you.
The fact that Obama does better with independents, and in states that aren't traditional "blue states" make me think he'll be the better candidate in November.
Honestly, I think either candidate can beat John McCain. But I think Obama will have better coattails. On issues like universal healthcare, having 60 Democratic Senators (and thereby the ability to stop filibusters) is the only way its going to happen. I think Obama doing better in places like the mountain west can get us closer to that than Clinton concentrating on the "big states".
"and flag pins"
Speaking of symbolic pandering, doesn't Clinton support a flag desecration amendment?
(Disclaimer- registered Republican)
correction:
December 05, 2005
Senator Hillary Clinton is supporting a bill that would ban flag burning, but she is opposed to a constitutional ban on the act.
Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill that would make it a crime to destroy a flag on federal property, intimidate anyone by burning a flag or burning someone else's flag.
A spokesperson for the Senator says Clinton supports making flag burning a crime, but is hesitant to amend the Constitution.