Obama is all talk, no substance. He puts forward right-wing arguments against universal health care (aka mandates), which will make it easier for Republicans to argue against that same legislation later on. And people underestimate how progressive Clinton has been.
Clinton is awful on foreign policy, and won’t fight for progressive causes. And the “experience” candidate doesn’t really have much experience. Although like a lot of folks, I’m considering voting for her just to say “fuck you” to the misogynistic press. (See also here, and here, and many other places.)
Edwards talks a good game, but his voting record isn’t progressive. And he has the fewest women among his senior staffers of any major candidate except Guliani — a fact that I was reminded of when Edwards reflexive response to the ridiculous “Hilary tearing up” story was a sexist remark.
All talk, no substance, is orders of magnitude better than substantive, palpable, evil. I’ll settle.
I think “all talk no substance” is a racist critique of Obama coming from the clinton camp, but it makes sense in this case when you think of his program of ‘change” having little change in it. I think the same thing about Clinton harping on Obama’s supposed inexperience. I think these are meant to draw on racist sterotypes obout slick black hucksters (Cumo’s ‘shuck and jive’ comment) and on white people’s racist reasons for opposing affirmative action (hes not qualified for the job of president, but he might get it because he’s black!) As you point out, Clinton isn’t deeply experienced either.
So I dont think the Clinton camp’s arguments are good ones for not voting for Obama. In fact the reasons for not voting for any of these three are the same in each case; they eacj support right wing militarist foreign policy, oppose universal healthcare, and have voting record to the right of where their mouth is.
The main reason i will vote for one of those three is to lessen the chance of a Republican winning. It’s a perfectly valid least-worst analysis.
For some reason, it’s more prevalent among Democrat (it seems to me) to “send a message” by voting for a candidate you know won’t win, rather than by voting for the candidate who will win, and who is better than the republican folk.
yeah, send a message, don’t vote for the democratic leader, but make sure we don’t have a republican in office for another 8 years as a result, ya?
I don’t get how Edwards’ remark was sexist. Sure, the whole “tearing up” controversy does involve the sexist “weak” stereotypes of women, but it’s not really fair to assume sexist motives of anyone who comments on it.
I could see that exact same remark coming out if it were a male competitor crying about how hard campaigning was. To me, it almost seems more sexist for the otherwise-vulturous media to give Clinton a pass on it because she’s a woman.
That being said, I’m still not impressed with Edwards.
Consider that Bush has cried in office and not been lambasted for it.
From the first link:
Back to Clinton and Obama, though. Let’s review their actual policy positions and voting records.
Exactly what I’ve advised in previous threads. Be sure to go back to Obama’s State Senatorial record, BTW. What you’ll find is pretty much nothing. What change has he successfully advocated in his public career so far?
Just about everyone here is unfamiliar with the workings of the State of Illinois’ legislature (a.k.a. “the General Assembly”). Since 80% of Obama’s public life has been spent there, let me fill you in. The General Assembly is run by 4 people; the majority and minority leaders of the two parties in each house. They, through their parties, control election slating and funding. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down. Legislators who try to change the way things work in Springfield (Illinois’ state capital) and act independently of the wishes and desires of the combined parties as expressed through the legislative leaders will find themselves losing election funding, facing opposition in the next election and eventually find themselves out of office. Legislators who have particular local issues that run counter to party interests will be permitted to vote in opposition if and only if the party otherwise has a comfortable vote margin on the issue, and it doesn’t happen all that often.
The people in charge in Springfield like the way things run in Springfield just fine. People who try to change things don’t last 4 terms in Springfield. It’s not somewhere that an agent for change on the national level is going to come from – he or she will have no experience doing any such thing.
Mandolin:
Consider that Bush has cried in office and not been lambasted for it.
Consider that back in 1972, Senator Ed Muskie of Maine was shown as teary-eyed during a campaign interview during the Democratic primaries and it was generally considered as one of the major reasons that he subsequently failed in his bid for the Presidency. Too bad, too.
Yes, Ron. Muskie was painted as weak and womanish. That sucks — and is sexism.
It also happened a while ago, and many male politicians have actually CRIED since. Hilary didn’t even shed a fucking tear.
@Mandolin
You’re conflating the issues. It is wrong to directly associate “weakness” with “femininity”. That is sexism, obviously. However, is it wrong to think that “weakness” is an undesirable attribute in a political leader?
The only other politician I can ever remember publicly tearing up was Bill Clinton, and it was never ever appeared to be caused by the strain cracking him, but rather that he was genuinely sympathetic for someone else.
A president who tears up because he is sensitive is a completely different animal from a candidate who tears up because she is losing.
However, I missed the events of GW Bush crying, and that smirking jackass is about as sympathetic as a hangman. If he actually broke down because his job was rough on him, I’m utterly shocked that the “liberal” media didn’t pick up on it and steamroll him for it.
I had no idea that Obama had argued against universal health care (I knew he wasn’t a proponent, but that’s not necessarily the same thing). Thank you for the heads-up!
Well, it gets into policy wonkery. Obama has argued against mandates — that is, a policy which requires every American to have health insurance whether they want it or not. But you can’t have truly universal health care without some sort of universal mandate.
But to be fair, what Obama is offering on health care is still many times better than what we have, and only a little worse than what Clinton and Edwards are arguing for.
This whole election has brought out some of the ugliest truths that I’ve ever seen exposed in politics during my lifetime. Clinton has no problem making use of the stereotypes that have historically benefited whites; the poor white woman being attacked by the big, black brute routine is more than tiresome. It’s downright offensive. I am so-oo-oo tired of her at this point.
Um…Amp, make up your mind.
When I think of “progressive”, Hillary Clinton doesn’t come to mind but then the word, “Democrat” doesn’t exactly come to mind.
Mandolin, what exactly happened in the first place? I didn’t follow the original story.
Without reading the other comments yet [time is short] I just wanted to respond to your statement “Although like a lot of folks, I’m considering voting for her just to say “fuck you” to the misogynistic press.”
Wouldn’t it also make sense then to vote for Obama to say ‘fuck you’ to the racist press, and also the the racist culture that has nurtured America into its present powerful state.
Not suggesting the oppression Olympics, just stating the correlation of sentiment.
There’s an important question where healthcare is concerned: what is more likely to actually happen?
– A complete dismantling of the entire system as it exists now in order to bring in a government-managed single-payer system (aka “universal healthcare as it’s most frequently seen”) or
– A program based on an assertion that doesn’t have much merit (that it’s insurance premiums, not medical costs that aren’t covered by insurance at all, that bankrupt families and limit access, which is frankly laughable) that will require a complicated system of tax credits, mandated compliance by the (powerful and recalcitrant) insurance industry and penalties against taxpayers/healthcare consumers (!) to work (aka the Clinton plan) or
– A plan that is based on working from existing structures (Medicare, Medicaid, insurance regulations and medical provider oversight) to expand insurance to the currently uninsured, cap premiums and otherwise expand availability of private insurance for those who have it and want it with a focus on improving public health (aka the Obama plan)
I want something that’s going to work, not something that’s so radical or so infeasible that it will never get out of the planning stages.
Yes, I agree. Frankly, given how evenly matched the three leading candidates are on policy, I think it’s perfectly sensible to vote for Obama to say “fuck you” to racism, and that’s one of the things influencing my decision. (Right now I’m leaning towards voting Obama, mainly because of foreign policy but also because of other issues, but I’m still a fence-sitter.)
That said, in my not-at-all-comprehensive viewing, the sexism towards Clinton from the media so far has been more overt than media racism towards Obama. I think there are a few reasons for this: Clinton is simply less well liked by the press (just as Gore was), and — more importantly — sexism and racism simply aren’t identical pathologies and so tend to be expressed in different ways. We don’t have to claim that one is worse than the other to notice that they often operate differently. (I don’t think you were making such a claim, of course.)
Bjartmarr, do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. :-)
The post was intended to be a link-post pointing out that none of these three folks are clearly better than the others. In that context, I felt comfortable posting contradictory statements.
Dreama, the Obama health care plan is different only by a couple of small degrees from the Edwards plan or the Clinton plan — both Clinton and Obama have followed Edwards’ lead on this issue. None of the plans are “radical,” although all of them are much better than the status quo. (IMO).
Whether or not the plans are politically feasible depends on a lot of stuff we don’t know yet (such as if the Democrats make gains in congress in 2008, and if so how large those gains are). But I don’t think the minor differences between the plans are enough to make Obama’s plan politically feasible and the other two plans not.
But I do think Obama’s plan, if passed in its current form, will not work as well because it contains no mandate, which means that healthy, employed young people — as well as people who just plain put things off — will have no motivation to buy in until they have a health crisis. That means that the costs will be higher for everyone else. This is a problem, and in the long run could make Obama’s plan less feasible than the others.
Ron, if you’re asking about what Clinton’s “emotional moment” was, you can read a CNN story about it here.
Good for you. People are so prejudiced against inconsistency. Nobody complains when you hold a conherant position, but the moment you contradict yourself, everyone piles in.
We should call them on their “consistency privilege”.
Thanks for the link, Amp. As far as what happened; big deal!
Por lo que puedo ver en tu post, la decepción polítca es universal.
(As I can see in your post, deception in politics is universal).
En España tampoco sabemos a quién votar. Los dos partidos más poderosos están desarrollando una encarnizada lucha política, cuyas consecuencias perjudican directamente a los ciudadanos.
(We also don’t know who to vote in Spain. Both most powerful candidatures are in a very hard political fight, which consequences perjudicate directly to the citizens.).
Tendremos que votar en marzo y yo tampoco sé a quién votar. Ninguna candidatura me parece acorde con mis convicciones. No tienen término medio.(We’ll have to vote in march and I don’t know who to vote. Any candidature is not according to my ideas. They haven’t half term).
Another country heard from!
Blas, I’m afraid that I don’t understand Spanish and I’m not sure what you mean by “They haven’t half term”.
Amp, remember what Emerson said:
I think he is saying “the candidates don’t meet my ideals; they don’t meet half of them.”
I did a little research on the meaning of “término medio”.
The first result I found seemed to make sense. It more or less translates to “medium rare”, and is only used when speaking of meat. So, I figured, Blas was saying that the candidates were all just hunks of dead cow that nobody had bothered to cook properly.
Alas, a little more research revealed that it also means “happy medium”. Blas is saying that there’s no happy medium: the candidates are all whacko extremists. Which makes a little more sense, I guess, but it’s much less satisfying than the beefsteak translation.
That’s awesome.
Which is why it hasn’t figured much into my decision-making regarding the three candidates. I have been more concerned with their foreign policy stances. And there the differences can be confusing: Edwards seems muddled, Obama seems hawkish on Pakistan, and Clinton seems a neocon dupe.
In the end I will throw my vote at whatever Democrat is on the ballot in November, because whatever Republican winds up opposing them will be so much worse.
So, I figured, Blas was saying that the candidates were all just hunks of dead cow that nobody had bothered to cook properly.
I can’t speak for the Spanish elections, but I’m not so sure that this isn’t applicable to the American one.
Blas is saying that there’s no happy medium: the candidates are all whacko extremists.
Given from what I’m hearing from all of the Democrats and just about all of the Republicans, that looks fairly descriptive for us as well.
At the end of the day, I’m thinking that once again I’ll be saying “My candidate always loses in the primaries.”
AND – if you’re really not into voting for a Democrat or a Republican at all, there’s always the Socialist and Liberation Party Candidate.
Or the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party.
“I guess, but it’s much less satisfying than the beefsteak translation.”
Perhaps he was saying that they were half-baked.
Pingback: it’s not time for american idol yet, so read this stuff « mmm, brains!
I think that I was wrong in traslating spanish politics to american politics.
I’m sorry about my English and about my ignorance in American Politics.
Our Constitution is different, and also our electoral rules, although both systems are democracies. In USA, candidates are voted individually. In Spain each Political Party elects its own candidate and people vote the parties, not the candidate, which is proposed previously.
“Socialistas y Populares” is more or less the political fight between “Democratics and Republicans”. There’s no happy medium (I learnt it, finally!). A sensitive candidature could resolve a lot of problems of the country, but all decisions not allways serve to ‘general interests’ (intereses generales, ¿lo he dicho bien?).
I’m also in your situation. I don’t know who to vote. Both most powerful parties cause insatisfaction.
We follow also the American elections in Spain because of the impact they cause to the rest of the word. A decision of your president could affect to other countries, and all the International Policy. That’s the reason because we consider your elections important . If the States take a decision, we’ll surely follow it (later of before) because we are in NATO. These are the consequences of being the most important nation of the world.
Someone said that all the word shoud vote in your elections, because all the word is affected.
I don’t say that. I only ask you that, please, vote a sensitive person who could give responses to general problems, warrant our security, end with terrorism (we remember your US 11-s and our SP 11-M, we fought and continue fighting against the same enemy), and avoid innecessary wars.