Style? Substance? Stability? Bueller?
Uncle Andrew
Brownsox over at Daily Kos had a great piece today about why he cast his vote for Hillary Clinton, and I found myself agreeing with him almost completely. I’m really torn about the question of who to vote for, and will probably not make up my mind until the #2 graphite touches down on the mail-in ballot.
It’s hard to argue with the main thrust of Obama’s campaign; the idea of change. Numbed by war, steeped in debt, reviled yet feared by much of the world, how can the American public be expected to do anything but stomp their feet at shout “Yee-HAW!” at the idea of a tidal shift in the vector of our nation? And yet, this may be as good a time as any to remind oneself that change can be good or bad. It depends on the change.
Sometimes it’s really hard to remember that, once you’ve stripped away all the window-dressing, Clinton’s and Obama’s goals for the nation are not terribly, cosmically different. Obama may have been against the (stupid, stupid) war in Iraq from the beginning, but that doesn’t mean that he would unilaterally and instantaneously evacuate our military from operations there upon taking the oath of office, any more than President Hillary would use her inauguration to exuberantly pledge our troops to another ten years in the desert. On health care, both candidates want a form of quasi-nationalized health insurance, with coverage portability, incentives for businesses to contribute to the health care of their employees, and stronger government oversight of health care quality, access and affordability. Both Obama and Clinton have similar—and frankly, similarly vague—plans to rework the quagmire that is our current immigration law. They both support similar policies regarding the environment and energy independence, with cap-and-trade systems for reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (boo), combined with mandatory increases in fuel efficiency and heavy subsidies for development of clean alternative energy sources (yay). Given their similarities, I think either would make a good President.
(Then again, as brownsox put it so eloquently, I would vote for, work for and donate to a can of Seagram’s ginger ale if it were on the Democratic ticket this fall.)
But for all of their similarities, Obama is the one who commands my attention. He brings across the message of inclusion and, dare I say it, hope, with flair and a sense of dedication to his cause. His skills as an orator are unrivaled in this race. He manages to make everything he says in his speeches sound extemporaneous, as though the words occurred to him only just then. (I still can’t get over how many people seem to think of our current Prez as a “straight shooter” chiefly because he has a mouth full of marbles. I’d like to think that the average conservative in this country is capable of less binary intellectual transactions than, “Bill Clinton is a great public speaker and I hate Bill Clinton; George W Bush talks like a Golden Retriever with ADD, therefore I love George W Bush.” But the anti-intellectual sentiment in this country seems fairly thick at the moment.)
By contrast, everything Hillary says seems to have been read off a TelePrompTer; it’s intelligent, it’s eloquent, but it has no real heart to it. Obama has Presence. And, by extension, Presidence.
But dammit, I don’t want to be swept off my feet by some smooth talker. Even if he is by all accounts fantastically intelligent. Even if he does seem to represent the diametric opposite of the same old ossified Repu shit we’ve been clawing our way through for the last seven years. Even if it would be almost excruciatingly fun to watch the conservative infosphere implode as it tried to discover the magic turn of phrase that would allow its warlocks to cast their evil spells without revealing themselves as racist. Even if there’s something just so fucking cool about the idea of driving a stake into the—well, maybe not the heart, but at least the spleen, maybe—of institutionalized white privilege by electing a black man to the highest office of the land, and what that might say to the rest of the world about just how far we’ve come.
Oh dear: I’ve gone and ranted about it until it sounds like a good idea again.
But while all that sounds almost irresistibly yummy, I have to remind myself again that this may be the time for some more basic, reliable fare; a nice healthy bowl of soup instead of the surf and turf. I think Clinton is highly intelligent, quick-witted, and dedicated. She seems to share my views on many topics vital to the health of the nation. To be honest, I think that I would probably like the overall tone of her presidency better than that of her husband’s.
With Hillary, I’m pretty sure of what I’m going to get, and at a time when just about everything else seems in flux, that kind of assurance isn’t to be taken lightly. Even if it’s sure to come with a heaping side order of some of the nastiest partisan rancor in the history of modern American politics.
And it’d still be a helluva milestone. The first female President of the United States is no small achievement. You go girl, indeed. 😀
My ballot is sitting on the desk in front of me, gazing up expectantly. I wish I knew what I’m going to tell it.
13 Responses to “Style? Substance? Stability? Bueller?”
Leave a Reply
All comments containing hyperlinks are held for approval, so don't worry if your comment doesn't show up immediately. (I'm not editing for content, just weeding out the more obvious comment spam.)
All portions of this site are © Andrew Lenzer, all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Apparently you are not alone in your indecision between two indistinguishable candidates. Looks like it comes down to the race card or the gender card with most folks split on what (not who) they’d rather have in office.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Wow, that’s a big-ass ol’ oversimplification of the situation. They’re not “indistinguishable”; their policy goals are markedly similar. The nuts-and-bolts can differ quite a bit, and after all, the devil’s in the details. The main difference would seem to lie in experience; whether one candidates’ “experience” makes them more or less desirable than the other is one of the big questions voters will need to answer for themselves.
Another real factor for me is whether I think the Repus will make it their sole mission in life to hinder, hamstring and/or outright destroy anything that the dreaded Hillary touches, and what that might do to the smooth operation of the federal government. Call it the, “Oooo, I just HATE that fucking bitch!” card, if you like. 😉
You’re right in a sense, though: with either candidate likely to represent a massive improvement over the current administration, Democrats are in a really sweet position of having to decide, among other things, whether they want to help break down one historical barrier or another. I happen to think that’s a fabulous quandary in which to be. 🙂
How about you, my friend? McCain conservative enough for you, or will you, like Ann Coulter, campaign for Hillary if he gets the party nomination? 😆
February 6th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Yeah, and professional wrestling is not fake. I think the dems really hurt themselves by promoting a black man and a white woman. If only they had sent in Oprah then there would be no conflict and y’all could vote for the first black, and first woman president. Wait, is Oprah gay? That would be a ‘triple-threat’. HAHAHAHAHA!
As for me, let’s see McCain has run how many times and lost? Besides, he looks like he’s already been embalmed, can’t imagine what four years in office would do to the guy, (or does that mean we’d really be voting for whoever is the vice president?). And Romney? Well I think Mormon Politician should be an oxymoron.
I guess I have fallen into the apathetic and disbelieving crowd. It doesn’t matter what they say up front, there’s no way of telling what they are going to have to deal with in office and what they will really do in those situations. Personally I think Hillary has more balls than her husband. I understand Romney’s values but don’t think they will help any in the cesspool we call Rome, er, sorry, DC. McCain should just retire already.
The King is dead, long live the King. And the beat goes on…
February 6th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
My goodness, we’re cynical, aren’t we? If you’re this disillusioned with government, I’m surprised you haven’t gone Libertarian. Or Kazinsky.
Really, which set? The values he had before he decided to run for President or the ones he strapped on after? 😛
Seriously, though, of course your point about not knowing what someone will really do until they get there is a good one. We simply cannot know: we can only do the research, make an educated guess and hope for the best. Or vote for the guy with the best hair. It’s all good. 😯
February 6th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
And now Wil Wheaton has chimed in. Pretty compelling stuff. Arrrgh….my head….
February 6th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I’m sure you are aware that in this state, the Democratic Primary is not counted, only the caucus. Unlike the Republicans who are counting the caucus results AND primary results 50/50, the Dems seem to think they can ignore the primary completely.
So you can vote, but it won’t count. Feel better?
February 6th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I’m actually going to the effort of caucusing (with Sheri) for Obama instead of attending a LAN party, because he had the wherewithal to resist the inclination to resist the inclination of our country to go batshit and do irrational stuff (e.g. invade Iraq) in the name of 9/11. The world’s not getting any less weird, and the ability to not do stupid stuff (e.g. invade Iran) when the going gets tough is critical.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I figured out months ago that I’m comfortable voting for any of the major Democratic candidates in the general election, and was looking forward to splurging on the opportunity to be a single-issue voter (since I wouldn’t really care if I voted for a candidate who lost.) Unfortunately, the only single issue that really motivates me is “the current occupants of the White House ought to be wearing orange jumpsuits”, and Kucinich dropped out. …So much for that plan.
The biggest difference I can see between Sens. Clinton and Obama is that Clinton has the defensive stance that comes with being attacked for fifteen years, and Obama doesn’t. I’m not sure whether that’s a plus or a minus. I can definitely see the appeal of rising above the mud and the blood of the past few terms, but I haven’t seen any hint that the Republican attack machines agree with me (McCain a traitor? Please.) I’d like to think that the American electorate will see through the $20 million in TV ads that paint Obama as Osama bin Laden’s personal mole in the Nation of Islam, but I had the same hopes about the Swift Boat people, and look how *that* turned out…
So yes, I’ll be “uncommitted” at the caucuses on Saturday, which should be interesting. 🙂
February 7th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Oh, and apropos “Mormon Politician should be an oxymoron”… I’m (probably deliberately) not sure what you mean by that, but the CoJCoLDS is actually doing pretty well in electoral politics right now. You do know that the Republican delegation to the Senate is almost 10% Mormon, right? There’s only one Mormon on the Democratic side, but he’s in charge, so maybe he counts twice…
February 7th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Oh, infinitely, thank you. 😐 The main point is, that my vote is an expression of my stance and my outlook, even if it ends up not being an expression of my franchise in this instance.
It’s all post-hoc at this point anyway, because I cast my vote for Obama. Took about twenty minutes of staring at the paper to make my mark. Though as Sheri pointed out, it doesn’t make a difference in this case anyway.
That was the clincher at the last moment for me as well.
My take is that this is a strike against Clinton. Not the stance, but the fact that there is an entire machine out there waiting to attempt to turn everything she says and does into a an exercise in futility. I don’t think my poor heart (and digestive tract) can take four to eight years of Richard Mellon Scaife-funded monkeys flinging shit at her administration. And I’m almost delighted at watching them try to do so with an Obama administration. So far, the whole “he attended a madrasah as a child” thing seems to have petered out with exactly the kind of eye-rolling I could hope for from the American public. Let’s hope everyone continues to keep their heads.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
And on the subject of Mormon politicians, Romney just dropped out of the race. I wouldn’t be overjoyed with a President McCain, but it’d still beat all hell out of what we’ve got now….
February 8th, 2008 at 9:38 am
This was just forwarded to me by Margaret; it pretty much sums up my feelings as well (I was originally an Edwards man).
February 24th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
We figured Obama’s credentials outweighed Hillary’s. How can he miss? Hawaii’s favorite son AND a Buff-en-blue boy ? What is not to love? Good enough for the other 75% of Hawaii’s caucus vote too.