Edwards Out - Go Hillary!
John Edwards was my favorite presidential candidate. With his emphasis on equality of opportunity and his focus on the working man, he represented what I wanted to see in our next President. The fact that such a smart and strong candidate did not dominate the Democratic field demonstrates what a great selection of candidates is running.
His withdrawal from the race is disappointing, but understandable. I'm glad he gave it a try, and didn't get involved in a nasty, vituperative effort. He's a great man, and I wish him and his family, especially his wife, the very best.
It's tempting to take some time off and look at the other candidates with a fresh eye, but there's no time for that. We have a primary coming up, and it represents Missouri's one opportunity to speak on who our party should select.
I'm on board with Hillary. She has the organization, the experience, and the toughness to win the big one. She is prepared and ready. We've seen her sliced and diced and accused of everything from murder to communism, and she's still thriving.
I offer these points as reasons, not as peruasion. If you've bought into the hope and excitement that Obama brings, I don't expect - nor particularly want - to change your mind in a paragraph.
May the better candidate win, and may both campaigns remember that the most important goal is to have a Democrat in the White House to clean up W's mess.
Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, presidential race
posted by Dan at 1/31/2008 06:48:00 AM
22 Comments:
Her husbands experience does not equal experience for her. If she wants her "experience" to count, she should open up the presidential communications so we can see just how involved she was.
I too hope for Hillary to be nominated; she starts out with 40% or more of the public who will NEVER vote for her . . .
Shane - yeah, sure, 8 years in the White House with peace and prosperity means absolutely nothing. If you want to believe that, really, go ahead.
GMC70 - I think the real statistic is about 18%, and she only needs to carry 51% (or 49% if she runs on the "Bush plan"). But, if you want to believe that, really, go ahead.
Dan, I think you're brushing off some good points. I don't prefer Hillary--I'd rather an actual progressive, I'd rather health care that doesn't incorporate the costly and inefficient insurance industry, I'd rather get away from the corporate/DLC wing of the Democratic party, she seems to like executive power and secrecy too much--but she's light years better than any Repub.
But I do question the "35 years of experience" claim; how many cabinet meetings, treaty negotiations, etc. was she actually in on? What actual executive/governmental actions did she have real authority and accountability for? I don't doubt that she was involved with Bill's political decisions, was an adviser, helped shape policy--but it's not the same thing, and I'm not convinced it was successful either. She was always apparently part of the thing I liked least about the Clinton administration--a reflexive refusal to share info, be transparent, unless forced.
And I think you're flat wrong about the negatives--she's got the highest of any candidate, and I fear that she may be the one factor that can actually mobilize a disappointed and scattered right wing to come to the polls. The right wing noise machine hates anything Clinton like nothing else, and I doubt she'll be converting any those haters; the best to hope for is they stay home.
I don't disagree with your positive points; but she doesn't represent me (not that anyone represents DFH's), and I worry that she may unify the Repubs more than any other Dem.
For both sides, the winning strategy is: Hillary/Obama
and McCain/Romney. Then, the nose holders will go to the polls, looking forward to the time when the VP's of both parties will have a shot at the Presidency. The chieftans of both parties will support (force) the unhappy marriage if it means that is the only way their side can win.
This quote from Matthew Yglesias (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/) sums up why I am for Obama:
"to pick Hillary Clinton would be to reconcile ourselves to playing between the 49 yard lines at a time when it looks feasible to open the game up and throw downfield."
We have a chance to elect an inspirational, transformative leader. Or we can continue to rehash the same ground again and again and fight tooth and nail for incremental policy differences.
Obama '08
Huckabee is the only candidate left standing who has shown concern for all life, including poor people and unborn people. Once again my party ignores my values, and they will pay for it in November.
Forgive me Dan but I absolutely can't believe that you would prefer Clinton to Obama. Of course, I see very little difference between Clinton and Bush.
Expanding executive privilege - check.
Voting for and supporting Iraq War (with votes not words) - check
Patriot Act - check
Basic lying and political chicanery - check
Of course, those are issues that are important to me and she's wrong on all 4. I just don't get how someone who has been so vitriolic against Bush can even consider Clinton over Obama.
I think Les hit the nail on the head also about the DLC which is as close to the BS of "compassionate conservative" or neoconservative as you can be.
Also, I truly hate the sentiment that "that the most important goal is to have a Democrat in the White House to clean up W's mess". Which implies that someone who checked a box on a voter registration form the same way you did is the only one who can solve the countries problems. It's incredibly closed minded, silly and cliquish. I'm assuming you meant to write "progressive" or some other term like that.
I'm tempted to believe that if Bush had the (D) by his name, you'd be on board with the war and Patriot Act.
. . . and that pugnacious smirk she gives every time somebody asks her a question she doesn't like gives me the Heebie Jeebies.
She's divisive. I know how much it has sucked for me to have Bush in the White House for the last 7 years, I don't wish anybody out there - no matter where their political views lie - to suffer the pain of watching your country be led by someone you can't stand, listening to speeches that make you want to vomit in your mouth, or cry when you go to sleep at night praying to wake up from this horrible nightmare. She doesn't affect me this way - but too many people out there don't like her.
Why not go with the guy that everyone listens to - whether its false hope or not, people tune in: because he's using different words, because he speaks to all of us - in some way, a little - and if he doesn't you're not listening, or not letting yourself listen. In this election, we're all taking a chance with who we vote into the White House. . .
I'll put all my chips on Hope.
Cant' stand McCain as much as the Dems can't stand Hillary. Interesting how unsatisfied many of us are with who we "supposedly" believe represents our Party and hope for the future, yet the polls show otherwise. Same holds true for everyday people I know. My own family (almost all diehard dems) can't stand Hillary and the conservatives I know feel the same about McCain. What gives?
Obama '08 here too!
I am once again reassured that not choosing Hillary is the right option for me.
If she argues so passionately that experience is the way we should vote, then why not put equal importance on her 10 years as a governor’s wife. Six of which she held the position of Board Member for Wal-Mart during its fight against unions. Her experience and history show that she did not fight for unions when she had a voice. Now, she is not willing to speak on the subject.
If she wins the nomination, I will support her. Until then,…
Obama for President!
Like several commenters, I am stunned that you are in Hillary's camp. From reading your blog for over two years...I gotta say, that is one huge shocker.
I agree with another commenter that the only way Republicans have a chance in November is if Hillary is the nominee. Nothing would mobilize the right more than that.
Personally, if Hillary is the nominee, I will not vote for her even though I vote 95% democratic. Not after what I have seen of her campaign. The final straws were her attempt after Iowa to position herself as the candidate for change and youth after that is what the exit polls told her she wanted. So in New Hampshire after she wins, gone are Madelaine Albright, Bill and so on from the stage replaced with college students. Gone are the signs that say "ready to lead" replaced with "ready for change". She is a follower who takes positions based on polls and focus groups. She said in New Hampshire after she won that she "found her voice". What? You've been campaigning for basically two years and you just NOW found your voice?? And then the final straw was taking Obama's Reagan comment completely out of context...like all her campaign does is scour Obama transcipts to find anything they can take out of context...knowing that few will look up the real quote. This is playing to the lowest common demonimator. This is politics as usual. And what you will get with her as a nominee or president. If people are serious about change Obama has to be your candidate. Not that it's any given that he can deliver once in Washington, but with Hilary you know what you're going to get. It's going to be 4 years a fighting and bickering and nonsense...drudging up the past. At least Obama is a fresh start...not a Clinton or Bush.
Please consider Obama for 08!!
It is disappointing to me that you would be in favor of Hilary Clinton over Barack Obama. Disappointing.
Many great and thoughtful comments here today, and I'm thankful. I'll ponder them this evening and try to post some responsive thoughts tomorrow.
But, anonymous 8:26, your comment made me literally LOL. Wow, I am crushed that I failed to meet the measure set for me by someone too gutless to sign his or her name to his or her opinion.
My bad Dan, I figured it out. You're choosing Hillary because you first backed Dodd and he dropped out. Then you backed Edwards and he dropped out. Now you're afraid to back who you really want because they'll drop out, so you chose Hillary.
Savvy move.
I did the same thing when the Cubs almost killed me in 2003. I decided I would just back the Yankees. But, that didn't work out too well for me either.
I definitely think backing Hillary is a lot like rooting for the Yankees and I hope it yields similar results.
Excellent idea, Dan. Nominate the one person who independents and Republicans (and many Democrats given the last few weeks) can agree should not be President. There is only way the Democrats can lose in '08, and that is if Clinton is the nominee.
Steve Benen at carpetbagger report gives a good line, that reflects my feeling:
"But I heard a pitch from an Obama supporter a while back that stuck with me: He unites the left and divides the right, while Clinton divides the left and unites the right."
As I said above, I would surely vote Clinton before anyone the Repubs have trotted out; but she worries me.
Hillary represents the Republican's best chance for a win in '08. Go, Hillary!
Stick with your gut, Dan. Hillary is the way to go. No matter what people say about her being too divisive, she actually polls about the same as Obama against McCain or Romney. Obama offers some great inspirational speeches, but I still doubt he actually knows how to get the things he talks about done. I think he'd be a great VP on the ticket with Hillary.
Dan, we disagree and agree on a lot of issues, but your support for Hillary Clinton is one that we agree on.
Your comments are right on the money. I like Obama a lot and will still be glad if he is chosen but All of this talk that a Hillary nomination will give Republicans a chance to win is sick. As you mentioned in your post, Hillary has been sliced and diced for 16 years being and still has a higher approval rating than most all Senators. Not to mention, when compared to Republican candidates she would win by a long shot.
She was great the other night. Her answers are always strong and thoughtful and to be honest Obama's aren't. Obama gives amazing speeches to move a crowd and party, but when it comes to debating and answering the tough questions, not so hot. You notice the pauses, stutters etc. Hillary answers immediately, thoughtfully and with responses full of history and experience.
I also really like Hillary's team. They know what they are doing even here on a local level. However, Obama's team doesn't which is surprising given that could be the easiest campaign to ever work for, the guy sells himself. In my opinion they are really a bunch of stuck up wannabe politicos from outside of the area who would sink in the kiddy pool of politics.
They don't know the issues, they don't know what's good for Missouri let alone Kansas City and they don't want to work with anyone because in their eyes, they are the best and don't need to. Ill admit after hearing some of Obamas speeches I was moved and began to question myself. But in the end, The joke Obama local campaign staff and Hillary Clinton's debate performances compared to Obama's have caused me to be confident about voting for Clinton.
I too was an Edwards supporter. Gave him cash and had two signs on back order (I guess I won't see those signs now). It was a difficult decision but I went with Obama. So I guess this former Edwards supporter will be cancelling out Dan.
It's pretty scary that people are actually supporting Obama.
No matter how you count it, Hillary has more experience and a history of actually DOING more of the things Obama claims to be for. Even his books, he does not stand by as being factual and doesn't have to, since technically the characters are claimed to be "composite characters". In other words, they are admittedly works of fiction. Very moving though, it seems like he really understand what people want to hear.
He missed almost half the votes when he was in office, way more than Hillary, and had a habit of just not showing up when it got too contraversial. And he's going to be a better leader?
He does give a better speech and comes off way more charismatic though. He can work a crowd into catchprase chanting in a way only a few in history have before.
I have to admit his history with militants does not mae me feel any better about him, even if he claims to be against what his former associations are about.
I think Hillary colors the truth sometimes, but Obama takes it to a whole different level.
He's the "other kind of candidate", who "doesn't stoop to that level", yet he uses all the tricks and then some. Yikes.
Post a Comment
<< Home