Discuss (capital D)
Hilary won’t get the Democratic nomination because if Democrats were rational and valued qualities like experience, ability to execute, and the manner in which a leader solves problems over things like style, how one looks in a suit, and that which makes one feel warm and fuzzy …
Well, then, wouldn’t they be less likely to consider themselves Democrats, capital D?
(ANP ducks for cover.)
No.
Hillary won’t get the nomination because at this point in our nation’s evolution her so-called “experience” isn’t important (and seriously, how anti-feminist is that, anyway? Her experience is derived from hanging around during her husband’s success? Other than that, shes been a senator for about as long as Obama has). She criticizes Obama for being “merely” inspirational, when inspiration is precisely what we need.
Im not old enough to have been alive during the Kennedy administration. But talk about the value of inspiration! He said to us something preposterous: we’re going to the moon.
Why?!?
We didnt need to go to the moon. There’s nothing there. It cost a fortune. Once we got there, we turned around and came home, and in almost FORTY years, we’ve never gone back.
But we went, and we were proud to be Americans qua Americans.
The first time that’s ever happened to me in my lifetime was when I watched Obama’s (first) “Yes We Can” speech after he lost New Hampshire. I cried, and I thought of what my parents told me about President Kennedy, and asking not what our country can do for us.
Obama is going to win because what he offers is what we all (desperately) need. And Hillary is dumb enough to point that out and suggest that that’s somehow a failing.
VoR
Right, so, you’re valuing that which makes you warm and fuzzy, thus furthering my point.
Mostly, except you characterize the valuing of “experience, ability to execute,” etc., as “rational,” when indeed my point is (a) that those qualities are low on the priority list in this election and (b) that she ain’t all that experienced anyway.
But yeah.
(a) The fact that ability to execute is low on The People’s priority lists is perhaps my biggest beef, as the deprioritization of actually getting anything done is what got us into this mess in the first place. If not greed and hunger for a quick fix was the driver of mortgage backed securities debacle, then what?
(b) Life experience, IMHO, definitely matters, and the mere fact that Hilary is older than Obama counts for something. Even assuming that Obama could translate experience as efficiently as Hilary into improving his judgment algorithm, the fact remains that Hilary has 200% more Senate experience than Obama.
I’d rather have McCain in office than Obama.
(There. I said it.)
VoR weighed in with the essence of my perspective but I do have to take issue with your characterization of the democratic party.
Rather than picking the warm and fuzzy candidate, recent party tendency has been to elevate substance over style. Our collective mood in this regard was perfectly reflected in Gore’s groans and sighs as he won policy point after policy point from George W. Bush only to lose the election.
Just like Gore, we struggle to understand how we can lose when we’re right on the policy. The vast majority of the citizenry is disengaged, disinterested and complacent. We need to acknowledge our participation in the governance of society and care about the outcomes. No amount of policy acumen, experience and problem-solving skills will convince us that this country is something worth engaging in.
What we need to clarify is the principle. Certainly the qualities that have attracted supporters to Barack Obama are soft skills but they are skills nonetheless and they go far beyond simply feeling warm and fuzzy.
Isn’t the patriotic McCain sort of playing on nationalistic warm and fuzzy undertones? Talk about warm and fuzzy, the Republicans are the kings of warm and fuzzy thinking, eg Bush after a few beers, courting the emotional and unhinged religious right, Reagan’s trickle down economics, and hmmm isn’t a tax break a form of warm and fuzzy for the few? The real question is how Mr and Mrs. D are going to be spending their 300 dollar rebate check this year. I bet it trickles up.
“the fact remains that Hilary has 200% more Senate experience than Obama.”
OK, I concede the 200% difference.
The fact also remains that Hillary had zero chance of being in the Senate at all were it not for her husband’s (considerable) accomplishments, and the happy coincidence, for her, that they share a surname. If we want to talk about merit, that certainly has to be part of the conversation. Right?
I will vote for Obama. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will vote for McCain.
And Im not afraid to say this: I *want* to be inspired (there, I said it, too). And, oh by the way, Id be elated if our president inspired the rest of the world to not hate us so much. The Bush presidents, who were all unassailably more experienced than even Hillary, really screwed that particular pooch.
One more thing on experience. Remind me again: how much experience did Lincoln have? I kinda thought he was pretty good.
I’m one of the rare democrats (70%) who like both Hillary and Obama. I don’t think they are that different and both would make a fine president, as long as they keep up the fighting spirit and stem all the capitulation we’ve seen for the last 8 years. More like this: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/25/obama/index.html
But, John McCain?? Really? I’m calling 3 strikes on McCain:
1. Neo-con war hawk who sings “Bombbombbomb, bombbomb Iran” http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-35,RNWE:en&q=bomb+bomb+iran+mccain
2. Tortured POW who facilitates continued torture of POW’s http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9684
3. Campaign finance reformer who snuggles with more lobbyists than anyone http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251
Wary of saying this, but Im a rare democrat who is “liberal” on torture.
Here’s the easy example. If guy X in prison Y has information about the nuclear warhead about to explode in midtown Manhattan, I think we’re all pretty much ok with hooking Mr. X up to the electrodes. Actually, maybe thats a false premise — maybe there are people out there who are ok with that bomb exploding. I am unapologetically not one of them.
The simple truth is, these people are actively seeking to do just that. I believe the CIA when it says that things like waterboarding — whatever its morality — are effective. So, if the captured Al Qaeda members aren’t singing, I say let the waterboarding begin, and lets stop apologizing for it.
Duck for cover indeed.
A. The ticking time bomb scenario is not real. It’s absurd on its face. How does prisoner X have such great information? How many months ago did he set the clock on the bomb? Do you think terrorists are too stupid to change the plan when the mastermind is caught? Let’s have a discussion about reality.
2. We are not limiting our torture to captured al Qaeda members, but to “enemy combatants” who are whoever the Government says they are. Under current US law, this designation is not reviewable by a court of law–no habeus corpus.
C-E. There is no reason to take it on the CIA’s good word that torture is effective. Effective at getting the truth or effective at getting what you want to hear? Evidence obtained from torture is used to detain and convict more “enemy combatants.” This is a house of cards. I thought history had judged torture as the tools of nazis, fascists and other undesirables, but here we are talking about it in the good ol’ US of A as if there is something to consider. You know, maybe those Spanish Inquisitors were on to something?!
5-9. I haven’t heard anyone apologize yet, and I for one will not be satisfied with an apology, but will wait for war crimes tribunals.
ALO:
“How does prisoner X have such great information?”
I dont know. But he hypothetically could.
How many months ago did he set the clock on the bomb?
I dont know. But he could know when his friend was detonating the bomg.
Do you think terrorists are too stupid to change the plan when the mastermind is caught?
Maybe. Maybe they dont someone got caught. Maybe we caught the mastermind’s underling, and the mastermind is still out there. Maybe maybe maybe.
We can agree to disagree. I understand and see your point. Im just more willing than you to err on the side of extracting what we can from terrorists who do indeed want as many of us as possible, in as explosive a way as possible, dead, and I think the ends justify the means. I respect that you dont.
VoR
Yikes, I wish I could edit.
Bomb*
Maybe they dont know* someone got caught.
Quotation marks around ALO quotes*
et cetera.
I just registered as a Democrat last month so I could vote in the primary, and I voted for Obama. Lest you brand me irrational, allow me to address your criteria one by one:
“[I]f Democrats were rational and valued qualities like experience, ability to execute, and the manner in which a leader solves problems…”
Experience: How are you accounting for experience? Clinton has about 15 years on Obama in age, but they both have decades of service for the public under their belts. If it wasn’t Obama running, but instead pre-mayoral Bloomburg running for the nomination, I could see the experience argument. But when both candidates have been in politics for as long as they have, quantity doesn’t matter (to me) as much as quality. Both were law professors and community activists prior to their legislative positions; Clinton had a few appointments outside of office, while Obama has more years in elected office. To me, not much separates them on experience.
Ability to execute: Whether it’s fair or not, Obama clearly beats Clinton here. No matter what happens in the next election, there will be enough Republicans who would be intent on shutting down a Clinton presidency. One thing that impresses me about Obama is that he impresses even Republicans. I’m not breaking out the Kool-Aid yet, as I’m sure conservatives will have plenty to dislike about Obama, but with him I see a chance of breaking gridlock–with Clinton, not so much.
The manner in which a leader solves problems: The Daily Koz has an excellent analysis here of the two candidates’ legislative accomplishments. Obama has introduced more bills and amendments on more issues and has had better results in getting them passed than has Clinton. All the talk about cooperation and working across the aisle isn’t BS; it really has an impact and is able to get real things accomplished.
I don’t doubt that there are a lot of supporters who are more interested in the style of the man than his issues, but that goes for Clinton too; that’s just politics. But don’t assume every supporter is on some delusional bandwagon; a lot of us have put a lot of thought into this, and we’re just happy that we have, for once, two excellent candidates to choose between instead of the lesser of two evils.
Sorry, that was a little long, and could have used some extra CR/LF’s…