?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile King Rat Previous Previous Next Next
Democratic caucuses - King Rat
Private Life
gkr
gkr
Democratic caucuses
I'm leaning toward Clinton at the moment.

I may change my mind.

I think Clinton's health care plan is better. In the negative column, her campaign has mischaracterized Obama's record in at least one case I know about, repeatedly.

Obama has a better technology plan. He's also got a decent health care plan, just not as good as Clintons. He's brought along an anti-gay preacher to some events to get the evangelical vote.

Frankly, I can't find a whole lot differences, and the only major difference so far is on health care. I'm digging through a few more issues.
15 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
faerieburst From: faerieburst Date: February 9th, 2008 02:51 am (UTC) (Link)
Obama is going to have a much easier, and more than likely more effective, time on the foreign policy front.

Something to consider.

Also, Clinton is strongly involved with "The Fellowship" which has "bringing God back into politics" as part of their mission statement. I'm not so okay with that.

Also, Clinton is a huge backer of "FOR THE CHILDREN" initiatives, from video game warnings to gun control.

~Aramada
gkr From: gkr Date: February 9th, 2008 03:20 am (UTC) (Link)
I haven't gone into too much depth on foreign policy yet between the two, but my general impression is that it is a wash. And pretty much anyone will be a huge improvement over George Bush. Even McCain. It'll be so much of an improvement that my thinking is the differences will be small in comparison. I am still investigating though.
faerieburst From: faerieburst Date: February 9th, 2008 03:22 am (UTC) (Link)
No, I meant that he will have an easier time on the diplomatic front. He's male. There are a number of countries that have an easier time dealing with a male leader. ::shrugs:: Also, he doesn't have B.Clinton baggage.

~Aramada
gkr From: gkr Date: February 9th, 2008 03:52 am (UTC) (Link)
Ah! Well, on that front, I don't care much. If chauvinist foreigners can't work with a woman quite as well, I am not going to lose sleep over it. At some point, the world will just have to get used to women in power. And some countries will just have to bite the bullet and be further in front that others, even if it means less cooperation.
laurelfan From: laurelfan Date: February 9th, 2008 06:23 am (UTC) (Link)

yeah, that gets a whatever from me too

Other leaders might have an "easier time" dealing with someone who's Chinese, someone who speaks Farsi, someone who's Catholic, etc...
faerieburst From: faerieburst Date: February 9th, 2008 11:12 am (UTC) (Link)
All of that is true, however, this might not be the best time for it. With all of the damage Bush has done to our foreign relations, much fence mending needs to be done. Hilary is not known for being particularly personable when it comes to her professional life. Diplomacy is going to be a very valuable commodity in restoring our good will with the rest of the world. Which, in the growing global economy, is growing increasingly important. So, that, coupled with the bias against women, now might not be the best time to try to force that issue.

::shrugs:: As I said, simply something to consider. Foreign relations are a part of the job of the presidency, and I think Obama is better suited for it.

~Aramada
nplusm From: nplusm Date: February 9th, 2008 02:52 am (UTC) (Link)
How do you feel about the Hillary Clinton/Peter Paul issue?

I'm worried that it will surface very visibly during the election and derail the issue basis of the presidential election.
gkr From: gkr Date: February 9th, 2008 03:14 am (UTC) (Link)
Peter Paul?
nplusm From: nplusm Date: February 9th, 2008 03:50 am (UTC) (Link)
It has to do with the possibility of Hillary Clinton being visibly guilty of election campaign finance fraud, a felony charge.

Peter Paul's discussion is here.

There is also a youtube documentary going around about it.

There is also a summary of the situation on wikipedia.

I'm still unsure about the questionable charges, but there does seem to be a significant amount of evidence that Hillary lied and evaded inquiry, and possibly manipulated the legal system to basically smear Peter Paul's accusations.
burgunder From: burgunder Date: February 9th, 2008 03:03 am (UTC) (Link)
I will argue that Obama has charisma, and Hillary Clinton doesn't. From everything I've heard from the throwback Republicans in my state of origin, there won't be any swing votes for Clinton where she is disliked for being a cold fish, but there could be a lot of swing votes for Obama. That seems to me to be worth its weight in gold once we get to the final countdown and we've got an actual democrat vs. an actual republican.
gkr From: gkr Date: February 9th, 2008 03:16 am (UTC) (Link)
There are a lot of people who won't vote for Clinton simply because she is a Clinton and a woman. There are also a lot of people who won't vote for Obama because he is black and they've heard he's Muslim. So far as I can tell, it's a wash on "electibility".
nplusm From: nplusm Date: February 9th, 2008 03:53 am (UTC) (Link)
I'm leaning towards Obama, mainly because I object to Clinton's politics.

I have had an issue with Hillary Clinton when she ran for Senator of New York, without ever having lived there or been active in their politics. It seemed clear to me that Clinton's main interest was not in representing New York, but into being a Senator. I don't believe Clinton plans to represent her constituents, but instead, I believe she plans to expect her constituents to believe as she does. I suppose many politicians are guilty of this, but Clinton's naked ambition leaves me concerned.
gkr From: gkr Date: February 9th, 2008 04:06 am (UTC) (Link)
I'm not considering most of these character issues like "too emotional" or "too ambitious" or "too cold". I'll consider hypocritical or lying, to an extent. But I am not voting on the kind of person a candidate is. I am voting because of their policies and whether or not they can follow through on them. Obama can be inspiring, but so was Ronald Reagan and he was a disaster.
faerieburst From: faerieburst Date: February 9th, 2008 11:29 am (UTC) (Link)
Taken from Wingedelf's journal (Vanya, don't know if you know him, been around the Seagoth community for a while, public post, so I don't mind snitching it)

For some context, he has been unsure about who he was going to get behind at the caucus tomorrow. He's opened up his LJ this week for people to "put forth their best points" on the candidates, and decided to see the Dems live. Here is what he wrote about seeing Obama:

"Senator Obama simply amazed me, and the crowd was stunning. Aside from the sheer numbers, the single part which stands out was his response to the audience member who fainted or otherwise fell out- not only was he enough connected with the audience to notice, but tossed her a bottle of water, asked if there was a chair or something which could be brought for her, asked for EMTs or the like in case it was more serious, and only after that managed to get back to his speech. Really sent the message that he cares for the ordinary people.

I didn't realize how much Obama reacting to the fainting woman affected me until talking with one of the staff at our local grocery and telling her about the event- I found myself getting a little misty at thethought that there's a candidate out there who sees people, not merely voters. I'm officially no longer undecided going into tomorrow's caucus."

The man sees people, not merely voters. That's kinda cool.

~Aramada
evillinn From: evillinn Date: February 9th, 2008 05:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
The thing is, and I hate to say this, but a good showman will do this exact same thing, and do it well. I will be supporting Obama today, but I know damn well that he's savvy enough with his public persona that this type of thing is part of being that good. That isn't to say he's not the kind of person that would give his audience member a bottle of water, but it is to say that he's got mad skillz in the public persona department.

All of that said, I have *no* problem counting "charisma" among the qualities a good politician should have. I know a lot of folks think charisma equals deception, but I do not consider that to be true.
15 comments or Leave a comment