mrchamp (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mrchamp) wrote,@ 2008-02-28 05:41:00 |
|
No excuses
I feel that it's time I describe in detail why I ended up voting for Clinton over Obama. This, however, isn't the only purpose of this post. I've been wanting to write a series of political analyses for a long time, and I keep forgetting to do something productive like this when I'm bored. Anyway, on to the meat and potatoes of the first of many analyses. :)
First thing's first. Experience platform versus change platform. For the highest office in the nation, I really thought the choice in this matter would be apparent to more people than it has been. It's hard to bear in mind that not everyone sees things through your eyes, and it is of paramount importance that we all try to do that whenever we aire our opinions on any issue. Considering the stakes in this election, we need both change AND experience. Unfortunately, as you can see, not one of the three viable remaining candidates run under both platforms. I suppose it might send "mixed messages" or something to that effect. We need to move as far away from Bush's policies which have alienated literally the entire world, with the exception of corporate elites. Both Clinton and Obama offer this. This is the easy part considering Bush has a terrible job approval rating on any aspect of his performance, or lack thereof.
The hard part, of course, is making the right policy and agenda decisions. Who has the greater experience between the two to do so? Rhetorical question. Any kind of change from Bush's policies without the experience to make these changes meaningful doesn't help us. Obama has argued that he has the judgment and wisdom to make change because he was right about being against the war in Iraq from the beginning. This is the sole example he has used and still uses. He bases his eligibility off of one decision. He has been accredited by numerous people, including Clinton for making the right call on the Iraqi invasion. He deserves credit for it, and he has certainly received it.
What Obama has apparently not received credit for is anything aside what I just described. He has been in the senate for around four years, and has no executive related experience whatsoever. Yet, he makes the case that he is ready to be president during one of our most unstable times. I love his ability to unite people of all demographics and party affiliations. Clearly, this is a gift of his. We need this unity now more than ever. However, I am afraid that this hardly qualifies him to be president. He claims that because of what MLK described as "the fierce urgency of now" that he essentially must be president now because if he waits, then it will be too late. I am obviously paraphrasing that a bit, and someone could certainly scrutinize me here. I agree that today's times are extremely urgent, and that is exactly why the office of the president isn't for him. If elected, he will get in the white house, get ready to turn the lobbyists, interest groups, etc. upside down, and then what will happen? He won't be able to do that during his administration, because he doesn't know how the executive differs in reality than from paper. Clinton does because she essentially lived in it for eight years.
Eight years versus zero years. Clinton knows how it actually works, Obama doesn't. Now, it is not this cut and dried for many others. They say that Clinton does not have any real experience over Obama, because she has only been in the senate a few more years, and that she has not actually been an executive of anything. Well, she saw first-hand every single policy Bill ever implemented, which ones were good, and which ones were bad. She can use these and apply those policies' effects toward her own. Obama has no such wisdom because he has no such first-hand experience to make change.
Next order of business, the "politics of yesterday" line. So, so very clever. Since Hillary is married to Bill, she must represent the politics of yesterday. Hmm, technically you are correct. But then again, Obama is also the politics of yesterday, since I'm pretty sure today isn't his first day on the job in the U.S. senate. Hillary has not been the president yet, Bill has, so if you wanted this argument to actually make sense from an executive vantage point, Obama would have said that Bill is the politics of yesterday, and Obama isn't running against Bill last I checked.
Let it be known, if Obama gets the nomination, it isn't because Hillary is anymore arrogant than Obama for presupposing that she would be the nominee early on. It's because much of the media has already declared him the winner, him having a smaller delegate lead now than Hillary had over him after super Tuesday. "It's over" because he has won 11 contests in a row. It isn't anymore over now than it was in the beginning when Clinton had the momentum, unless the American people who have not yet voted decide it is, and go along with the media. You can see people changing their votes for Obama in the statistics that are given. People are going with the flow, the flow of the past. Are we voting for who we think will win, or are we voting for the candidate with the best qualifications? Even superdelegates who "aren't pledged" toward any particular candidate are changing to Obama, poor victims of a meaningless media. People are unable to think for themselves, and it will be their own undoing if they cannot learn to do just that.
If Obama becomes president, then we have no excuse for whatever may ensue. If he cannot handle whatever comes his way, we have ourselves to blame for it. Just like we have ourselves to blame for 2000, 2004, and may others. We chose Bush's "style" over Gore's and Kerry's substance before, and we have a disaster on our hands. Experience or change by themselves will not help us, but the two together will. The former of the two cannot be disputed; the candidate either has it, or he/she does not. The latter can be disputed. We cannot assess which candidate will actually make the effective change we require. But if the former is not given, then there is almost no chance to succeed. We shall then have to "hope."
Don't get me wrong, I'm voting for Obama if he gets the nomination, hands down. It's just I think he's going to be in over his head in a hurry, and he's going to need a loooot of help. Clinton wouldn't need as much help. But Obama seems to be a receptive guy, conversely to Bush. If he is receptive to advisors, our chances to succeed will improve. This is my true hope, that he will be very receptive if elected and be able to admit that he is inexperienced, simple and plain.
I hope this gave you a better idea of why I voted the way that I did and believe the things that I do. Most importantly, I hope I did not appear to be bashing Obama, because my intent was certainly far from that. Neither candidate has the complete package for me. The only one that I know of that would is Al Gore, and he isn't running. He is the man. Thank you.
I feel that it's time I describe in detail why I ended up voting for Clinton over Obama. This, however, isn't the only purpose of this post. I've been wanting to write a series of political analyses for a long time, and I keep forgetting to do something productive like this when I'm bored. Anyway, on to the meat and potatoes of the first of many analyses. :)
First thing's first. Experience platform versus change platform. For the highest office in the nation, I really thought the choice in this matter would be apparent to more people than it has been. It's hard to bear in mind that not everyone sees things through your eyes, and it is of paramount importance that we all try to do that whenever we aire our opinions on any issue. Considering the stakes in this election, we need both change AND experience. Unfortunately, as you can see, not one of the three viable remaining candidates run under both platforms. I suppose it might send "mixed messages" or something to that effect. We need to move as far away from Bush's policies which have alienated literally the entire world, with the exception of corporate elites. Both Clinton and Obama offer this. This is the easy part considering Bush has a terrible job approval rating on any aspect of his performance, or lack thereof.
The hard part, of course, is making the right policy and agenda decisions. Who has the greater experience between the two to do so? Rhetorical question. Any kind of change from Bush's policies without the experience to make these changes meaningful doesn't help us. Obama has argued that he has the judgment and wisdom to make change because he was right about being against the war in Iraq from the beginning. This is the sole example he has used and still uses. He bases his eligibility off of one decision. He has been accredited by numerous people, including Clinton for making the right call on the Iraqi invasion. He deserves credit for it, and he has certainly received it.
What Obama has apparently not received credit for is anything aside what I just described. He has been in the senate for around four years, and has no executive related experience whatsoever. Yet, he makes the case that he is ready to be president during one of our most unstable times. I love his ability to unite people of all demographics and party affiliations. Clearly, this is a gift of his. We need this unity now more than ever. However, I am afraid that this hardly qualifies him to be president. He claims that because of what MLK described as "the fierce urgency of now" that he essentially must be president now because if he waits, then it will be too late. I am obviously paraphrasing that a bit, and someone could certainly scrutinize me here. I agree that today's times are extremely urgent, and that is exactly why the office of the president isn't for him. If elected, he will get in the white house, get ready to turn the lobbyists, interest groups, etc. upside down, and then what will happen? He won't be able to do that during his administration, because he doesn't know how the executive differs in reality than from paper. Clinton does because she essentially lived in it for eight years.
Eight years versus zero years. Clinton knows how it actually works, Obama doesn't. Now, it is not this cut and dried for many others. They say that Clinton does not have any real experience over Obama, because she has only been in the senate a few more years, and that she has not actually been an executive of anything. Well, she saw first-hand every single policy Bill ever implemented, which ones were good, and which ones were bad. She can use these and apply those policies' effects toward her own. Obama has no such wisdom because he has no such first-hand experience to make change.
Next order of business, the "politics of yesterday" line. So, so very clever. Since Hillary is married to Bill, she must represent the politics of yesterday. Hmm, technically you are correct. But then again, Obama is also the politics of yesterday, since I'm pretty sure today isn't his first day on the job in the U.S. senate. Hillary has not been the president yet, Bill has, so if you wanted this argument to actually make sense from an executive vantage point, Obama would have said that Bill is the politics of yesterday, and Obama isn't running against Bill last I checked.
Let it be known, if Obama gets the nomination, it isn't because Hillary is anymore arrogant than Obama for presupposing that she would be the nominee early on. It's because much of the media has already declared him the winner, him having a smaller delegate lead now than Hillary had over him after super Tuesday. "It's over" because he has won 11 contests in a row. It isn't anymore over now than it was in the beginning when Clinton had the momentum, unless the American people who have not yet voted decide it is, and go along with the media. You can see people changing their votes for Obama in the statistics that are given. People are going with the flow, the flow of the past. Are we voting for who we think will win, or are we voting for the candidate with the best qualifications? Even superdelegates who "aren't pledged" toward any particular candidate are changing to Obama, poor victims of a meaningless media. People are unable to think for themselves, and it will be their own undoing if they cannot learn to do just that.
If Obama becomes president, then we have no excuse for whatever may ensue. If he cannot handle whatever comes his way, we have ourselves to blame for it. Just like we have ourselves to blame for 2000, 2004, and may others. We chose Bush's "style" over Gore's and Kerry's substance before, and we have a disaster on our hands. Experience or change by themselves will not help us, but the two together will. The former of the two cannot be disputed; the candidate either has it, or he/she does not. The latter can be disputed. We cannot assess which candidate will actually make the effective change we require. But if the former is not given, then there is almost no chance to succeed. We shall then have to "hope."
Don't get me wrong, I'm voting for Obama if he gets the nomination, hands down. It's just I think he's going to be in over his head in a hurry, and he's going to need a loooot of help. Clinton wouldn't need as much help. But Obama seems to be a receptive guy, conversely to Bush. If he is receptive to advisors, our chances to succeed will improve. This is my true hope, that he will be very receptive if elected and be able to admit that he is inexperienced, simple and plain.
I hope this gave you a better idea of why I voted the way that I did and believe the things that I do. Most importantly, I hope I did not appear to be bashing Obama, because my intent was certainly far from that. Neither candidate has the complete package for me. The only one that I know of that would is Al Gore, and he isn't running. He is the man. Thank you.
