Okay, here's the big political
rant discussion I promised yesterday. It's getting squicky in the Democratic primary. Obama has won the
last four states - Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, and Maine - which I think makes him about even with Hillary in the delegate count. And Clinton has
replaced her campaign manager, which usually isn't a good sign for a campaign. But this is definitely a long-haul race, and although Obama is strong in the next couple races, I think Clinton will still have a chance once we get to Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Some people are even saying that it will be the
superdelegates who swing the election one way or the other, and we won't really know who the nominee is until the convention. Which is just crazy, when you consider the recent trends - the nominee has been decided earlier and earlier in the primary season, making the convention more for show than any real announcement. Everyone thought moving the primaries up would only exacerbate that situation, but in reshuffling the order of the states (and in having two equally strong candidates), we've managed to do the opposite.
Thus far on this blog, I don't think I've really been very overt about arguing for my candidate, although I think it's obvious I'm a Hillary fan. Have been ever since Bill Clinton's presidency - he's the first president I was ever really aware of in a political sense, and I've always admired Hillary for playing an active role as First Lady, rather than hosting parties and baking cookies, as the traditional role suggests. There aren't many female role models in politics, and she was my first.
My admiration of her only increased when I met her in person, during the Rendell campaign. She just overwhelms me with the impression that she is an intelligent, thoughtful individual, and even with the push and pull of political interests, I feel like she gives her positions the care and consideration they deserve. She's also much warmer and more genial in person than the impression a lot of people get from her on TV. My mom (she was there, too) has been saying that if Hillary just had the opportunity to address every voter in person, she'd have this election sewn up. Granted, she'll never be as charming as her husband, but I think because of her gender, she will always be labeled "bitchy" instead of "strong-willed," "opportunistic" instead of "determined," "cold and calculated" instead of "rational and thoughtful." It's an unfair double standard, and rather than me babbling about it, you can read
Robin Morgan, who said it much better than I could. Everything she says is why I'm voting for Hillary.
Beyond all that, there's the not-insignificant matter of political positions, and I think the big one here is health care. When it really comes down to it, Hillary and Obama are both Democrats, and their positions really aren't that different - except for health care. Clinton is in favor of universal health care coverage, Obama is not. Coming from someone who
almost took a job in the Office of Health Care Reform, and who still has a few good friends in that office, I'll tell you we
need to start with universal coverage. We're gonna be going to the bargaining table - and the Clintons have plenty of experience in how nasty that can get and how wrong it can go - and if we're already compromising, giving ground before we get there, how much further are we going to be pushed before we get anything passed?
Of course, it wouldn't be fair to make a post like this without giving consideration to Obama, so you can read John Baer's column on
why Obama's going to win. Normally, I'm a big Baer fan, but on this one, we'll have to disagree. (I also thought it was a little disingenuous in posting the
responses he got to his article - it's hard to believe that he couldn't find a single reasoned, thoughtful argument against Obama in the flood of emails he received. Yet, the only Clinton supporters he quotes are ignorant and rude, and the people who agree with him are all calm and rational in their support.)
Don't take my Hillary support to mean that I think Obama is a bad candidate - he's not, and I'll be supporting him 100% if he wins the nomination. But I think the best way to put this is that Obama is the better
candidate, while Clinton will make the better
President. Obama knows all the right things to say to
warm the cockles of our middle-class hearts. He's about hope and change, and it's all lovely to hear, but
completely unrealistic. Why does he think that he's going to get into office and the Republicans will suddenly be willing to hold hands and work together with him, that he won't get the same vitriolic welcome that Bill Clinton did? Hillary's upfront about it, because she's been there - she's knows it's gonna be a tough battle, but working class people have it pretty shitty right now, and they need someone willing to buckle down and slog it out to make things better.
You may have noticed by this point that I'm only considering the Democratic candidates. This is because, well, I'm a Democrat, so yeah. I'm sure I'll delve more into McCain - since it's almost certainly going to be McCain - as the general election gets closer, but for now, I'm focused on my party. However, now that the Republicans have a nominee pretty much locked up, there is some value in looking at
which of the Democratic candidates has the best chance at beating him. I don't know if this will have a big impact on voters (I'm not sure that most of them will think this strategically), but I know it will have an impact on Democratic strategists - whether to take the chance on Obama's campaign for change, that it will outweigh the huge lead McCain has over him in experience, or whether to go with Clinton, who polls pretty equally with McCain in terms of experience, even though he has many more years as an elected official, and who is in a better position to challenge McCain on foreign affairs.
Class dismissed.
Labels: politics
