Politics: Obama versus Clinton

Ok, here comes my most emotional topic. I’ll post some links and videos at the end of this post. But I’ll take a moment to speak my mind.

Some time ago, I was thrilled at the Democratic candidates that were running for President. I am thrilled that my top 4 lasted as long as they did and I, on some level, am ok with the remaining three. But I really don’t think that Edwards has that much of a chance, though he can still play a role. I’ll discuss that in a moment.

But for now, I’ll give my thoughts and feelings on the Obama-Clinton match-up; links to other articles to follow.

First, one factual image (based on stated positions):

This image is taken from something called the Political Compass; the pencil is NOT on my position; my position is DIRECTLY on the Obama photo. That isn’t at all surprising.

As you can see, Clinton and Obama don’t differ much on the issues; there is a health care mandate here, a type of Iraq withdrawal plan there, etc.

But they do differ on approach and style.

What draws me to Obama: Mostly, I started off backing him because he is the “local guy”:

Here he is with Barbara Van Auken, the city council person that I worked to get elected. Those who know him say that he is the way he appears in public; there isn’t an ounce of phoniness about him. To me, that is very attractive.

I also like the way he answers questions:

I get the feeling that he is explaining, rather than attempting to BS you. While he attempts to see the other point of view, he has a point of view that doesn’t shift with the audience. Yes, the ability to change one’s mind is good; what I am talking about are those who talk in a manner as to make it appear as if they agree with who they are talking to, even though they don’t.

I like the way he can get along with those who disagree with him; compromise is a lost art. (source article)

But on an emotional level, I guess that I can related to a somewhat slender, intellectual dark-skinned guy who doesn’t seem to have patience with stupidity.

Are they things I don’t like about Obama? Well, sure. I can see why gays got upset over the Donnie McClurkin incident (the so called “formerly gay singer”). I thought that Obama pandered too much to religious conservatives, while taking shots at people like me. I wish that he supported gay marriage instead of just civil unions. I didn’t like him blowing off the Daily Kos, though he did talk to us a couple of times and he did participate in our candidate forum.

Ok, I don’t mind that he doesn’t pay that attention to people like me, but I am mostly bothered by the religious stuff and the gay marriage thing.

And ok, I wish that he had been a governor, or had one extra term in the U. S. Senate (no, I don’t count being “first spouse” as “experience”).

But on the whole, for me, the good outweighs the bad, by far.

So what about Hillary Clinton?

I’ll start with what I like about her: she is smart, capable, tough, and has done fine work as a U. S. Senator (save a couple of votes).

This is what I like most about her:

No, the fundies don’t get it, but she was right on here, and explained the issues very clearly. Gosh, how I wish I could see more of this from her campaign!

And there is something else going on: many women simply love her; they are just touched on an emotional level that a woman is a credible presidential candidate. That is meaningful to me too; I want my daughter to realize that she is no second class citizen.

But oh boy is it meaningful for my mom, and to my sister, and I mean deeply meaningful. In fact, I sent them Hillary Clinton shirts (they don’t know this yet).

You know, I really am happy that the women have something to feel good about. It is real and liberal professionals feel it, conservative professionals feel it and my fellow female political junkies feel it too.

So, what don’t I like about her? Well, for one, we don’t see the HRC that we see in that video; instead we get some sort of salesperson. But even worse, we get public displays of self pity, where she seems to be angry that the voters just “don’t get that she is the best”.

In short, I see a bit of this:

Sure, I don’t like the antics and the blindness of some of her supporters, but all candidates have those sorts of supporters (including mine).

Sure, I don’t like some of the misleading barbs thrown by her campaign:

But politics is a rough business.

But I’ll tell you what bothers me more than anything. It is her campaigning.

It seems as if every single thing out of her mouth is more designed to manipulate rather than to inform. She is almost script bound; when confronted by something off script she seems lost; it is almost as if she is thinking “ok, what did the focus group say?”

Damn it, when she speaks on the campaign, I almost feel insulted; I feel as if she is bending over backwards to manipulate and sell rather than to inform.

The sad thing is that I liked her much better prior to the campaign. The more I see of her, the less I like of her. I hate to say it, but as one right winger put it, it is almost as if she is the “robo-candidate”.

So, where are we now?

Well, Obama picked up a big endorsement: John Kerry.

Note that Obama’s support remains enthusiastic. In fact, an Obama “let’s work to get out the vote session” scheduled for Monday is sold out due to lack of room! (I have my invitation in hand)

Hillary Clinton
The Hillary Clinton crowd sees her negative image as reflecting the faults of the voters themselves rather than anything legitimate, and that is in keeping with her Hillaryland concept.

The cornerstone of Clinton’s empire is called Friends of Hillary. In January 2001—after she’d been elected to the Senate but before she’d been sworn in—Clinton signed papers permitting it to raise money for any future campaign, and in the past six years it’s reeled in $48 million (though Clinton will end her romp of a reelection with less in the bank, about $15 million, than many expected). FOH has two headquarters: one in Washington, on the K Street power corridor, and one in the Graybar Building, on Lexington Avenue at 43rd Street. Both are commanded by Patti Solis Doyle, the first person Hillary Clinton hired during the 1992 presidential campaign. But Hillaryland, the playful nickname hung on the predominantly female staff during Clinton’s years as First Lady, sprawls far beyond any set of office suites, and includes key New Yorkers like political consultant Howard Wolfson, media guru Mandy Grunwald, and Maureen White, former finance chair of the DNC and wife of investment banker Steve Rattner.

Big as it is, so far the Hillary machine has been impressively quick, efficient, and relentless. The flip side is that Clinton’s superstructure also is at the core of her authenticity problems. Everything she does seems stage-managed. Netroots giving Clinton unmitigated grief? Wolfson sees to it that Friends of Hillary hires one of the political blogosphere’s sharpest practitioners, Peter Daou. Chattering-class talk that Hillary can’t win growing ever louder? James Carville and Mark Penn write an op-ed for the Washington Post laying out why she can. Not that she’s running for president, mind you.

This is a team of tough, resourceful fighters—and they’re a necessity when beating back the Republican attack machine. Yet Hillary’s troops give off a pervasive sense of embattlement that contributes to their leader’s reputation for coldness. They’ve nicknamed her “the Warrior,” and they mean it as a compliment. But that image, that surface reality, is what turns many people off; there’s a great deal more going on inside Clinton.

The most important Friend of Hillary, the one who provides her remarkable story line and much of her considerable momentum in the Democratic Party, is also the most approachable. And, as if Hillary needs it, he’s also a Technicolor warning about the perils of life in the White House. [...]

Of course, her act does play with a certain demographic, as the data from New Hampshire shows:

income HRC O JRE
$15,000 49% 37% 13
$15-30,000 50% 29% 15
$30-50,000 44% 32% 17
$50-75,000 32% 37% 18
$75-100,000 36% 42% 18
$100-150,000 33% 43% 17
$150-200,000 48% 33% 15
>$200,000 33% 44% 13

Note the 100-150 group, which appears to break the pattern.

Note: Clinton did win among older women; this aspect is discussed here.

As long as Hillary Clinton, and now Gloria Steinem, has chosen to play the women’s card against the race card, let me throw in a third one: the class card. Clinton claimed in the New Hampshire primary debate that she is the unmistakable agent for change because she is a woman and her election as president would send a strong signal of a new day aborning to America and the rest of the world. It is hoped that it would be a more progressive message than the one sent by Margaret Thatcher’s ascent in England.

Steinem put a finer point on the argument in her New York Times commentary, published Tuesday, New Hampshire’s primary election day, arguing that women get wonderfully more “radical” as they age, and therefore older women are more inclined to vote for Clinton, Steinem’s preferred candidate, as opposed to Barack Obama, whom younger women went for in Iowa. Maybe those younger women were more worried about how to pay off college loans or swelling mortgage obligations than gender identity.

What is radical about voting for a corporate lawyer who, in defense of her Arkansas savings and loan shenanigans, once said you can’t be a lawyer without working for banks? [...]