|
Hillary doesn't have much of a feel-good message. She is running on her ability to take on tasks that Bush has neglected. It's a pretty standard moderate-progressive agenda.
Barack Obama's is very similar, but he is campaigning on a feel-good platform. I think he will have much less success in dealing with Republican obstructionists. He is markedly less savvy and aggressive than Hillary and his message of compromise will make it easier to steamroll him.
Although he has actual nuts-and-bolts plans to implement, he has never specified how the feel-good message would be accomplished. How would he create hope? What would he change? He talks about changing the mindset that led to the war, but how would he do that? It's rhetoric, and while it's nice, most of his followers think it's something substantial. In effect, it's a pep-talk.
The idea that Hillary is "always on the attack" is a narrative, not the truth. The campaign has actually been quite tame. If there is anyone who could cry foul, it's Hillary, because of the preferential treatment Obama is receiving. I do not expect any Obama supporters to acknowledge it, but within a few months of a nominee being chosen, it will be very visible. But if you want to try to be more objective, simply keep track of the press' scrutiny of each of the candidates. Obama has received nearly none; Clinton has had the kitchen sink thrown at her, and it's only February. Although many DUers speak darkly of the "Clinton sleaze machine," this machine seems to exist only in the minds of people who dislike the Clintons. When you have hundreds of thousands of people spreading this message, it becomes clear that the phrase actually refers to a machine that is aimed at the Clintons.
My support of Clinton is based on her superiority in handling attacks, and in taking care of the federal business of the people of New York. Barack Obama has certainly been no slouch, but Hillary's record is quite formidable. She has also managed to win the respect of nearly all the Republicans in NY, and the support of about half of them. In spite of the constant conspiracy theories about the DLC, she is quite progressive, far more so than the DLC's stated principles. She and Obama are quite alike in their voting records, which is why so much attention (and ranting) is being given to the IWR vote and so little to the other war votes.
With Obama, we really have no idea how he would handle a day-in, day-out Beltway dogpile, though it is a certainty that he will have to if and when he is the president.
An Obama presidency would not suck. But a Clinton presidency would get a lot more done. It would also be more controversial, there would be more conflict and attacks lobbed at her, and it would be a delight for cynics. But I do not mind conflict, and I'm seeking neither emotional comfort nor inspiration from my government officials.
You finished you post with the line, "where is the hope?" Hope is in the simple activity of getting up in the morning, getting the kids to school, and going into work. It's the disabled or elderly person once again shaking off discouragement and doing just a little more than could be done yesterday. It's government officials who plan practical agendas to improve the lives of the people, and shepherd those projects from proposal to cutting the ribbon. Hope is in the day-to-day action of being alive, thinking, planning, and (especially) doing.
Obama does not lack for the practicalities, and Hillary is not without inspiration. But if anyone thinks that campaign style makes a bit of real-world difference, they just haven't been paying attention. My main criticism of Obama is that he is selling the sizzle; Hillary is cooking the steak.
--p!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
