Yes, I am an Obama man!
There are a few reasons, starting with issues:
- Health Care
Both of their plans are almost exactly the same, with one key difference. Clinton’s requires everyone to acquire health care (after having made it cheap) and Obama’s simply makes it cheap and leaves it up to people. I think there are issues with both approaches. With a mandate, it has to be enforced somehow, which probably means fines for those unwilling to buy health care, probably the poorest people around. Without one, people have a chance at not paying for health care until they get hurt and really need help, which could cost more in the long run. In the end, I value my freedom over the order that this might install, and prefer not to have a mandate.- Special Interests
This is one of their biggest differences. Clinton has no issues with taking money from special interests and lobbyists. Obama hasn’t taken any money from either for his Presidential campaign. While I harbor no fantasies that laws will be able to be created without special interests pulling for their own way, I prefer as much detachment as possible. I should probably note this is only talking about federal lobbyists. This also goes along with Clinton’s refusal to release her tax returns, like most every Presidential candidate in recent history. She said she would after getting the nomination, so why not now? At the least its a bonehead campaign move.- Foreign Policy
This one probably gets more news play than it should, as it is a pretty small difference. Obama has said he will meet with foreign leaders, even if they aren’t “good” ones. Clinton has said that she might. I like openness, and think that refusing to talk to other leaders is part of the Bush 43 mentality that has caused such trouble in Iraq…- Iraq
Their plans for the future are almost identical. What is very different is their past. Obama spoke out against the war before it began, while it was very unpopular to do so and almost every other politician was promoting it. I think this serves as a nice example of his judgement, something I think has been lacking in the Bush 43 White House.
That covers most of their policy differences. They are remarkably similar in their views on the world, which leaves a bit less to sift through to make a decision based on the issues alone. This MSNBC article covers a lot of their records relatively well.
There are also personal preference items that have shaped my choice for who I should support. As much as such things get ridiculed by many, they are extremely important in governing effectively, since if the public doesn’t follow, you aren’t really a leader.
- Speaking Skills
I know a lot of people who cringe every time Bush 43 steps up to a microphone, in preparation for whatever torture he will do to the english language on that particular day. I think that this lack of eloquence has turned a lot of people away from politics, as it becomes a chore to even try to comprehend what the President is saying. Obama is an amazing orator, and he is drawing a lot of new people into being interested in government. Clinton is also miles better than Bush 43, but not nearly as good at capturing a crowd as Obama is.- Background
Obama has had a very unique life up to this point. I think having seen the world from a lot of different places, from the slums of Chicago to the beaches of Hawaii to whatever it is they have in Indonesia, it all serves to give him a background for knowledge. He understands other cultures and won’t anger the rest of the world the way Bush 43 has. I think an Obama presidency could go a long way toward making the world admire America again, instead of despise it.
All of which I think creates a very inspiring candidate, perfect to actually be able to win in November. That idea takes me to my next category.
I am very much a political pragmatist, and want to see the Democrats beat the Republicans this fall. Measuring electability is scorned by a lot of pundits, who favor a more idealistic approach, but I think its important to support one’s goals, not simply a single candidate.
- Polarization
Clinton’s negatives are sky high. Last time I checked them out, which was right before Iowa, I believe, they were at almost 50%. It’s hard to run a campaign with so much of the country already having their minds made up against you. Obama is a newer force, and his negatives aren’t nearly as high, and are concentrated almost entirely within the Republican base, who would never vote for a Democrat anyway. If Clinton wins the nomination, she will be hoping to win a close election over McCain. That’s what both Gore and Kerry tried to do for themselves. I think its time to try something else. Obama has a real chance to put some red states back in play, which could throw a wrench into the Republican electoral math and create a landslide.- Scandal
Clinton touts this as a positive about her, but I’m not so sure. Her reasoning is that she already has gone through the Republican wash cycle, and came out the other side fine. (Although Al Gore would probably argue that all wasn’t fine.) I think that as soon as some little new tidbit is dug up about an old scandal, or even just the very beginnings of a new one showing up, the public will all remember the final years of Bill’s Presidency and want to distance themselves from it once again.- Political Firsts
The nomination of either of them will be a huge political first. While African-American and woman have about equal weight for the white male I am, I would really prefer if the first woman isn’t someone who is only there because of who she married. I think it sets a dangerous precedent, and in a way reinforces old thoughts—that a woman can’t do well on her own.- Convention Politics
Clinton wants to seat the delegations from Michigan and Florida. Even some of her Congressional endorsers are seeing the idiocy in this. In Michigan, no other candidates were on the ballot, after the state defied the DNC. In Florida, none of them campaigned there for the same reason. If she does succeed in having them seated, which could happen due to wacky convention protocol, they could be enough to swing the nomination to her. She also favors a situation where superdelegates overturn the decision of the pledged delegates. If either of these does come to fruition, expect a huge backlash from a large part of the Democratic party, which will almost guarantee a November loss to McCain.- Campaign
Clinton came into the primary season with a 20+ point lead, and looked to be headed to an easy nomination. Her campaign has repeatedly screwed up and become almost pathetic at various points since then. First, they dumped too much money into Iowa and New Hampshire. Then they went to Nevada and had Bill bring up voter fraud just so they could later refer to “reports of voter fraud”. Then off to South Carolina and some pretty horrible race-baiting by Bill. (Don’t forget, they used to LIKE black people!) Just recently, they pretty well screwed up by thinking that Super Tuesday would decide everything. After pretty much tying on February 5th, they didn’t have organizations set up in the following states, and ended up having to pretty much skip them. A lot of it reverts back to old politics that Bill once cried out against (The Man from Hope!). Some of it is just stupid tactical errors.
Obama, on the other hand, has run a much tighter ship. After a surprise win in Iowa, he acted a bit too much like a front-runner in New Hampshire (and made a stupid quip about Clinton’s likability), causing that loss. Since then, it has been pretty much flawless. They saw much earlier than the Clinton campaign that it would become all about delegates and started targeting specific districts to try to win more. Now he has a near-insurmountable lead in pledged delegates.
The Republicans nominated did well this year for themselves, and nominated the guy who can most likely win the election. With that in mind, such campaign errors could have huge effect if they happen during the general election, and I don’t want to see the White House slip away from the Democrats’ grasp.
The bottom line is that Barack Obama has the best chance of beating John McCain in November. With that win, he would take to the White House a unique background, which he has learned from to craft a mindset that could fundamentally alter America, and point it in a new direction for this 21st Century.
*** UPDATE ***
I probably should have covered experience initially, it totally slipped my mind. There are two separate ways to look at this. The first is the more traditional way, simply comparing their experience records. The second is a bit further removed, and pays more attention to whether or not experience is something that is very important.
- Experience
First, the discussion of their experience in comparison to each other. There is no denying that Clinton has more years in the public eye. Her 8 years as First Lady undoubtedly have helped her understand how everything works. She has also taken credit for a lot of the good things that happened during Bill’s presidency. The problem with this, is that it is very easy for her opponents to hang the failures of his presidency on her neck. The current example of this is the set of NAFTA mailers going out in Ohio. Clinton has been in the Senate for 7 years now, which is her only legislative experience. Barack Obama has been in the Senate for 3 years now, and before that he was an Illinois State Senator for 7 years. So while Clinton has spent more time in the public eye, it isn’t as big a gap as a lot of people think, and not all of it is positive, as will be discussed next.As I said above, there is the possibility that her opponents will use the failures of Bill’s presidency to hurt her in the general election. There is also the possibility that old scandals will come up again, from those years. Putting aside these issues of electability, however, there are also issues of judgment. If someone has been repeating the same mistakes for years on end, there isn’t any reason to credit them with all those years. I think Obama has shown that he can judge situations well and react accordingly, which to me is much more important than having a long record behind him.- Race and Gender
Race has been brought up a few times. The most striking example of it was right around the time of the South Carolina primary, when Bill Clinton temporarily turned into the attack dog for the Clinton campaign, and said some pretty ridiculous things. This included comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, since both won South Carolina, basically saying that he only won the state because he was black. Since that got a lot of media and a lot of voters had a negative reaction, his role in the campaign has been severely limited. Some lower-level Clinton surrogates have also said some stupid things, gotten slapped on the wrist by the campaign, and then gone back to being best friends. If you ask me, they were just doing it quietly for the Clinton campaign, but I don’t have facts to back that up. News pundits talk about the demographics a lot, but haven’t done anything too surprising.Clinton’s campaign has also tried to play the gender card a few times, only truly succeeding once. That was in New Hampshire, when she cried shortly before the primaries, got made fun of for it, and then used it as a sympathy tool. She tried it again right before Super Tuesday, but it didn’t get as much media. Most recently, they tried to make a large issue out of an MSNBC host referring to the campaign’s use of Chelsea as her being “pimped” out. No polls have shown that approach to have gotten much traction, and they stopped complaining about it. Her outfits do get made fun of a lot, which probably wouldn’t happen if she were male since men don’t have much choice in how they dress (I’m sure if one of them showed up in all yellow there would be some stories written!).
*** UPDATE 2***
Comparison of their education plans, as was requested of me elsewhere:
- Early Childhood
Obama has a “zero to five” plan to cover children before kindergarden starts. He wants to grow Head Start and have a program for affordable child care for working families.
Clinton does much of the same. She also wants to grow the Head Start program, and wants to have preschool available to everyone. A new idea of her’s is to have nurses be available to visit homes to teach parenting. She does not discuss child care.- K-12
Obama wants to reform No Child Left Behind, and fund it. This includes changing it to a carrot program instead of a stick one, so it isn’t punishing so many schools. He will increase the importance of math and science, and promote the teaching of english-learners. He also places a lot of importance in decreasing drop-out rates, starting with planning programs in middle school. There are also plans for after-school and summer programs.
Clinton wants to end No Child Left Behind all together. She emphasizes quality education for disabled students, and the need to cut the minority drop-out rate. She also wants to start early-planning programs and other help to promote finishing high school and going on to college. Unique parts of her plan include building green schools to cut down on energy use, a summer internship program, and a drive to educate “disconnected youth” for high-tech jobs.- Teachers
Obama has a plan to provide college scholarships for those willing to teach in high-need areas for at least four years. Along with this program will be accountability checks to make sure current teachers are accredited. To keep teachers in their jobs, he wants mentoring programs to have teachers help each other. He ends with the desire to have teacher reward programs, so there are financial reasons to be a better teacher.
Clinton’s only thought is to, “Recruit and retain thousands more outstanding teachers and principals, especially in urban and rural areas.”- College
Obama will create a $4,000 tax credit for students wanting to go to college. This may be paired with a volunteer program requirement. It will be available when the first payments are needed, by basing it off the previous year’s financials. The application for federal financial aid will be deleted, replaced instead by a simple checkbox on the family’s tax return.
Clinton will create a $3,500 tax credit. She will increase the Pell Grant maximum and invest half a billion dollars in community colleges. She will increase the AmeriCorps 1-year scholarship to $10,000. She also wants to remove red tape from the financial aid process, and encourage selective universities to give more access to low-income students.
There aren’t very many real differences. Obama wants to keep the “No Child Left Behind” name while Clinton wants a new program. Obama focuses more on getting new and educated teachers, while she focuses more on high-school aid for disadvantaged students.