3.03.2008
hillary 2008!
i'm not often political or meaningful in this blog, but i just read the democratic debate transcript from ohio...and maybe she comes across better on paper, but how can you not be behind hillary? she's got so much more heart. you can tell that she really does do her homework. she knows the facts, she knows the voting records, she knows the ins and outs of the policies. how can you not vote for such a hardworker? she's not as smooth in front of the cameras; speechifying doesn't come naturally to her...maybe she's a bit wooden, but to me, that makes her all the more endearing. to me, she symbolizes all that got screwed over in this country by the bush villain. plus, wasn't that the complaint against gore and kerry? that they weren't personable? isn't it time we voted for someone who ISN"T personable? someone who's a bit geeky, a bit awkward, but knows her stuff? i'll be frank, i'm not up to snuff on all the policies, but i trust hillary to represent me, and i trust her to KNOW what she's signing and to research the implications her decisions will have. i loved the clinton white house. i think they did a terrific job, and she was there for every bump along the road, so i know she knows what's involved. maybe obama will be a great president. maybe he won't. it's not really a chance i'm willing to take.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'd been trying to avoid primary election stuff for awhile, but recently started giving in. The more I watch of the debates between Clinton/Obama, the more I dislike Hillary. I agree that she's intelligent, knows the ins/outs, etc. It's her attitude that I don't agree with. The main difference I see between Hillary and Obama is fighting versus solving.
Hillary has a very defensive attitude both in the election itself, and more importantly in her positions on the issues (especially foreign policy). I've never approved of people who have to put down others to prove their own worth (as she does constantly in the election).
As for foreign policy, Obama's attitude has been to open/improve communication with our allies *and* our enemies (like Cuba). Clinton's own approach is more focused on action, rather than diplomacy. Considering how the rest of the world views us, I think it's vital that we have a president who will bring a good name back to the U.S. I think Obama has a much better chance with that than Hillary.
Especially now, with so many issues in flux (national security, economy, etc), I think we need a president who we (and the world) *want* to listen to.
that's the thing, i feel like ppl like obama purely b/c they LIKE him more, not b/c he'd make a better president.
i can understand why hillary feels defensive in the primary. her life is policy. i bet she discusses policy as pillow talk with bill. she really believes in it, and she believes in america. and here comes this upstart 40 year old who doesn't know as much as her, hasn't worked as hard as she has, hasn't suffered all the shit that the system has put her and her party through. all he's got is charisma, and once again, she will be defeated by charisma, like 4 years ago and 8 years ago. and he doesn't really answer her points in the debates, he's just smooth, and he's good at the soundbytes. but that's the thing, you can't discuss policy in depth in front of a tv camera. it doesn't sell. so she's screwed again.
she can't change her personality, but that doesn't mean she can't be diplomatic (she visited 80 countries as first lady; she's led human rights conferences and women's rights conferences). and i think she'd do a much better job with the domestic issues (economy, health care, etc) than he would. he wants open dialogue with the entire world? fine, but what will it achieve? and what time will that leave for him to manage things back at home? remember those 8hour smite meetings where everythign was discussed and nothign was done? and we even wanted to be on the same page, whereas sitting down with these dictators and hearing their demands...what will that accomplish? seriously? it sounds like somethign a miss america contestant might say: "to achieve world peace, i would sit down with all the leaders of the world and talk it out."
he may be easier on the ears and eyes, but she is no george bush. she won't do an awful job abroad. either one of them will be a change in regime. plus, she has the added advantage of representing a better time to a lot of world leaders already. she's met a lot of them as first lady, back when they still liked america (or liked america more at least).
it also seems that we make her work a lot harder than we make him work. if she said the things she says and she were a man, would we still view her as defensive and bitchy? i'm not saying the answer is definitely yes, but it's worth thinking about. perception-wise, guys get away with a lot more than girls...i'm not a raging femi-nazi or anything, but it's pretty apparent in the workplace, and i don't even work at one of those old boy's banks.
AND you can't compare policies without criticizing the one that you don't like. you can't say, wow these are both great policies, you have to compare and contrast. she has to point out flaws in obama's policies to prove that hers are better. but if you want to stay general like him, i guess you come out looking like the good guy.
I'm not going to respond with a long post, because I have only one major point.
Policy is all well and good. Great, in fact. We need great policy. That's what an administration needs as their foundation. From what I've researched there isn't a whole lot of difference between the overaching policies of Clinton and Obama. And truthfully, whatever is good or bad about their plans will get reworked when taking office. After all, we still have House and Senate and not to mention the president's own advisors all working to find the best possible solutions.
My real point is that there's so much more to being a leader than great policy. A leader NEEDS to be an inspiration, someone who people want to follow. Otherwise, they wouldn't have anyone to lead. I strongly believe that personality SHOULD play a huge role in electing a leader. I won't get all academic and talk about human and social psychology, but just think about the good and bad leaders/bosses/coaches/captains in your own life. How were you affected by their attitude, by their personality, their ability to convince or inspire you?
A president has power, sure, but so do hundreds of other people in the government. What the president has more than any of those other leaders is status, visibility.
Ok, and I'll respond to one more thing. I've thought plenty about the "are we just hating on Hillary because she's a chick" angle. And at least in my case, it's certainly not true. If she were a man, I'd find her just as pushy, arrogant and whiny. I'd go into how I'm really fed up with Hillary pulling the "women should vote for me just because I'm a woman" thing, but that's a whole new can of worms...
no, i get where you're coming from, and those are really good points. i guess i'm just tired of the rhetoric. i'm glad he can get ppl excited about our government, but i wish they were excited b/c they like his plans, not b/c they like his words. it's words that got us bush and war (albeit not obama's words). i guess i'm a bit saddened that we as a generation and as a nation are so easily swayed by the rhetoric. i'm probably also in a different boat b/c i've never watched any of the debates (time zone issues), so i don't get the gut negative reaction to her. when i read the transcripts, she sounds very intelligent and not petty at all. and then i read the comments on some of these political blogs, and his followers seem so mean and unsubstantial. so maybe i'm more turned off by what i perceive to be the attitude of vocal obama supporters (and i don't see myself as fitting in with them). seriously, yours is one of the best articulated arguments i've heard as to why he should be president.
I am entirely in agreement with Darlene -- we need a leader who inspires. Look at our historic voter turnout; it's abysmal. If we have an election that results in a leader who will inspire the country to get up off of their asses and care about something, then I think we're headed in the right direction. Our generation is entirely too apathetic. Everything has been handed to us, and far too many of us have not had real struggle. A lot of that is because our parents struggled, and they didn't like it, so they think we'll be better off if we don't have to. But adversity builds character. So, the result is that we have a generation of kids with not very much character. Some of them figure out how to find themselves by intentionally putting themselves into adverse situations (travel abroad, e.g). Some of them figure it out by accidentally getting themselves into adverse situations (major body trauma, huge family changes, etc). But there is a huge percentage of people in our generation who are content to just coast.
I believe that for 20-somethings who aren't going to see real adversity to motivate them to DO something, the next best thing is to have a person in the public spotlight who can connect with and motivate them. How awesome would it be if the people with the mobility, energy, and freedom to improve society would actually effing DO it! I'd be stoked.
That being said, I wouldn't mind Hillary as president either. She's brilliant. She's tough. She's one of my heroes. I just wish either her or Obama would have waited till the next election. I want them both.
Post a Comment