Clinton v. Obama archived

OK. Go to it!

The tired and wrinkled faces of the 80s and 90s, a campaign that's a referendum on Bill's presidency, a sense of entitlement to the party's nomination and a second chance to have that couple in the White House...

vs

The new guy, young faces of the future, a push for change, a dicey scenario, a big city Midwesterner with an interesting ethnic background that better reflects the US of today, no more experience on the national stage than 43 had when elected, but obviously better educated and more articulate

Agreed innis. But is he electable? That, for better or worse, is my prime concern. For that reason, I'm favoring Edwards at this point (and I mean this point) in time.

wendy,

to be candid, I really like Edwards's populism: his message about the two Americas is one he has been delivering since the last campaign, so for me it is genuine, authentic, and represents what the US has increasingly become since 1980.

Above, however, I was contrasting my impression of Obama with my impression of Hillary, and I mentioned above that Obama offers a "dicey scenario."

On the other hand, the way the country is going, voters might well prefer Clifford the Big Red Dog to any candidate that the Republican Party could field.

I think Obama is electable. Maybe even more so than Hillary. But I agree with innis that any one of them, Obama, Clinton or Edwards (even Richardson) is the odds-on favorite against any of the Republicans.

I don't think Obama has the depth of knowledge that Hillary has. He's smart and makes great rhetorical flourishes, but if you listen close enough there's a certain emptiness of content that goes largely unquestioned by the media.

i like obama a lot and hillary to me represents more of the same washington bs. And he did not vote for the war. To me, Hillary does not come across as a leader. She's no doubt very smart, but she does not pull off the leader thing very well.

If obama were pres, maybe he could have Bill as Secty of State.

In terms of emptiness of content, I'd respond that I'm still trying to understand what makes Hillary (and I would vote for her if she were the Democratic nominee) say and believe that she has the qualifications for the highest office in the land, based on being a former First Lady with tangential (if that) involvement in the affairs of state.

If it's based on pillow talk, when did that become a qual? That's no more a qual than having a daddy who was president two numbers ago.

You just disappeared her six years in the US Senate.

All the democrats candidates are TERRIBLE!! Where is Harry Truman, JFK, FDR...is this the best we have..if so then I guess I can settle on Obama.

I didn't "disappear" them (and by the way "disappear" is not a transitive verb). I find that her 6 + years in the Senate don't amount to much. She has essentially signed on to bills authored by others, has originated very little legislation on her own, and voted to support the war in Iraq.

In the two election contests for her Senate seat, Hillary didn't have to bowl over aggressive and well regarded Republican opposition. Rudy pulled out of the first contest because of prostate cancer.

Hillary's winning as a Democrat in NY City and State over such "stellar and accomplished" rivals as Rick Lazio and John Spencer (I can see you nodding in recognition of their extensive national reputations...) was not exactly like defeating the enemy at the Battle of Gettysburg.

Didn't Truman leave office with a 20 percent approval rating?

I was using disappear in its colloquial Scorsese form.

Clinton has sponsored more than 450 bills. Obama has sponsored 113. Even if we exclude Obama's years campaigning rather than doing his real job, Hillary has done more work.

Hillary has won respect from both parties in the Senate. She really understands how to work both sides of the aisle. Listening to a (Bill) Clinton advisor on Charley Rose the other night, he said he thinks Hil needs to get more of her humor and heart into her campaign. He says she's got lots of both. He thinks she holds back on her humor because sometimes it really zings, and she is afraid that a woman zinging a male candidate will not go over well. I can really believe it.

But, what all the talking heads were saying (the only name I can recall is David Brooks), is that Obama has caught the timing that is ripe for change. I think that is where the JFK comparison comes in. The next generation particularly is looking for someone new. Also, as many of them said, Obama appeals to many white people, and this would give our country a chance to heal around this issue of race. It could make people feel good to vote for a black presidential candidate.

I do agree with what one of the speakers from a conservative think tank said. Something to the effect that change is inspiring, but it is very vague, and we don't know what that means.

They also mentioned how excited so many people were about the results. I heard at least a couple reporters say that even crusty older journalists who weren't given to emotions were watery eyed over this.

Again, that kind of excitement does remind me of when Kennedy ran. And he was young. Not so experienced. And wasn't terribly effective in getting his legislature through congress. But I am not saying Obama is Kennedy. But I agree with what the heads are saying in that it has been historic.

"I was using disappear in its colloquial Scorsese form."

Understood. When Marty runs, let's colloquially support him and disappear his opponent. That sense originally goes back to the Argentinian mothers of "the disappeared ones" (los desparicidos) of some 30 years ago, I believe.

The interesting question is how many bills did Hillary glom on to (cosponsor) versus how many originated from her own desk and work and were cosponsored by others?

I hope Hillary has done more work. This is her second term in the US Senate. Obama was elected only in 2004.

As I said, in the end if Hillary is the candidate of the Democratic Party, I will vote for her. I believe that Obama and Edwards have far more compelling candidacies and more compelling visions about the US.

Name me a president who doesn't leave with a low approval rating, if what you said about Truman is even true. How you can compare Truman's experience prior to being president to any of these candidates before they took office is a joke...tell me which of these candidates has lead anything??? America deserves someone who knows how to lead AND has experience at it..I don't know if any of these candidates are ready.

I agree about Edwards. Personally he'd probably be my man. But a couple of bad signs. I have heard that he is absolutely brilliant in the court room, but when he is campaigning, his eyes never stop blinking. This could be an issue of bright lights. I don't know. But I wish his people would have figured out how to fix this. It weakens his message for those of us who get distracted by visuals.

Also, one of Rose's pundits said that at Hil's and Obama's campaigns, there was a lot of cheering. Edwards's speeches are negative, and the audiences seemed to be grimly determined. America wants their leaders to be upbeat.

Don't get me wrong. I am very much in line with his message. But I always fear the Dems can lose to a Republican. They must nominate someone who can win. I would vote for any of the Dem's 3 frontrunners. Are they really prepared for the presidency? I don't think any candidate ever is. I think what is important is who they surround themselves with. How they think about things. Their capacity to think in complex terms.

It would also be nice to have someone the world could respect. Someone on NPR the other day suggested the world would like to participate in these elections. Anyhoo...

Harry Truman was Vice-President for just a few months when FDR died. Before that he was a Senator but I do not know how prominent he was or what he had accomplished. JFK was a relatively junior Senator. People never seem especially enthusiastic about the candidates and always want to compare them to past leaders.

The debates tonight on Channel 7 were very interesting.I felt Romney made a poor showing.Huckabee really didn't say much. John McCain seemed happy knowing he has a lead in NH. But most interesting was the Democratic debate. I thought Edwards was wonderful.He was quick with all the right answers. Hillary was also quick with responses. She's a bright woman. Obama to my mind just didn't seem to do it for me. At this point I'm between Hillary and Edwards. Either one would make an excellent president.

You should read about Truman and all he accomplished before he was president. I suggest David McCullough's book Truman...he certainly had VASTLY more experience than any of these candidates before he was president. His experience allowed him to make the tough challenging decisions his presidency needed..All I am saying is I don't see that in any of these candidates. JFK was a WW II hero, not that military service is a qualifier to be president...but give me something besides lawyers and full time politicians...some kind of experience that allows you to stand out, because tough decisions will need to be made. I do thing Obama can be a charismatic leader..but is that enough to be handed the White House? I don't know...but I guess he gets my vote.

I think this says it well. We have the candidate of the party professionals and the candidate of change -

MILFORD, N.H. -- The pillars of the New Hampshire Democratic establishment had filled the front tables at the party's annual dinner Friday night, the better to applaud enthusiastically when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, their overwhelming choice for president, talked about her readiness to lead.

But when Sen. Barack Obama took the stage, hundreds of Obama supporters swarmed the front of the hall, surrounding their tables and sending people such as Beverly Hollingworth to the exits.

. . .

Mary Louise Hancock, the 87-year-old grande dame of the state's Democrats, said she "resented" that independent voters were poised to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary, saying it turned the vote into a "personal-liking affair" dominated by "students and the trendies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/05/AR2008010502616.html?hpid=topnews

Would you guys agree that Edwards markedly moved next to Obama (and he was already sitting next to him) against Clinton as to the tenor of the debate last night? -Saying "Hillary wasn't talking like this when she was winning".

I thought that it was really remarkable, -they almost started to look like a ticket (?)
I said to my wife at the time, -Do you see what is happening here?

Clinton was fuming, -no doubt exhausted and frustrated from Iowa.

Four years of a Bush, eight years of a Clinton, eight years of another Bush and now a potential eight more years of another Clinton equals a potential gagging 28 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.

I don't think I could bear it.

If Clinton loses NH, and Obama wins, she won't be able to recoup the momentum.

Obama is really starting to look presidential.

Innis,

I find your assertion that Obama is better educated and more articulate than Clinton to be somewhat disingenuous. How does one arrive at that comparison?

Clinton: Wellesley undergraduate and Yale law

Obama: Occidental College and Columbia undergraduate and Harvard law

For those of you who are too young to remember Columbia was not open to women until 1983. Wellesley was considered a co-educational equivalent to male-only ivy league schools.

I have yet to hear Obama articulate anything more than I wasn't there for the Iraq vote, but I sure would have voted against it.

Clinton has articulated legislative programs to benefit education and health care both before and during her time in the Senate.

Being articulate doesn't mean saying, "I'm the fresh face" over and over again. Being articulate means that one actually stands up and gets counted on critical issues confronting our country and in the process drawing the ire and wrath of those who would oppose your view.

PhilC,

If you read my posting again, you'll see that I was in that particular sentence comparing Obama and 43, not Obama and Clinton.

Posted By: daveI don't think Obama has the depth of knowledge that Hillary has. He's smart and makes great rhetorical flourishes, but if you listen close enough there's a certain emptiness of content that goes largely unquestioned by the media.

Dave,

You are forgetting the passion quotient.

And we are really tired of the Clintons, especially Bill. There's a moral compass issue as well, out there in America, regardless of their illustrious experience. Rather like being banned on MOL. It stays with one.

Know what I mean?

I think there's a moral compass repair place in Union, if you are interested. You should stop believing everything Republicans write.

:smile:

I'm wondering that perhaps one of the reasons the primaries are so contested is due to the fact that the bar for "looking presidential" has been set so low by the current one. I'm pleased that all of the candidates in the field speak in complete sentences.

The bar may have been set low, but Obama looks mighty presidential to me, full sentences and all. So do Hillary, Edwards and Richardson, for that matter.