| Over the last few months, I have been going over and over in my head the reasons for voting for each of the candidates I thought had the best chance of being the Democratic nominee - Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. At first, because of John Edwards full-throated support of economic populism, I was planning on voting for him. Now that he's no longer a candidate, I have to make my decision, like you, between Hillary and Barack.
While I fondly remember the Clinton years, mainly because it seemed that the future was rosy, I harbor doubts about Hillary's ability to help grow the Democratic Party in the South and the Midwest, where we need to regroup, and regrow the grassroots.
Many folks here in Louisiana remember the days that candidates and their supporters would come knocking on their door, asking them how things were, and what they thought was the direction the country should go in on various issues, and letting them know that the Democratic Party was listening to them. For some reason, the Party got away from that. Now, we have essentially written off the South and the Midwest in Presidential elections, and we have paid dearly for it. After all, since 1980, we have seen GOPers in the White House for 20 of those 28 years.
I am heartened, somewhat, of Hillary's ability to work with upstate NY Republicans during her time in the Senate, and push economic stimulus proposals for that area. That ability is largely why she faced no significant opposition in her re-election campaign in 2006. In addition, she has worked to find common ground with her GOP colleagues in the Senate on issues like adoption with Senator Coburn of Oklahoma (who's certifiable, by the way), and military issues with Senator Graham of South Carolina.
However, as a speaker giving a speech, she does not inspire me. However, during debates, she impresses the hell out of me, as she is so damn knowledgeable about the issues, and we need someone who has an in-depth understanding of our nation faces with regards to health care, the economy, the war in Iraq, and on and on.
On the other hand, Senator Obama is easily the best speaker we have seen since Bill Clinton. And in some ways, he is better than Bill. After all, Barack is bringing in more new voters and more new donors with his campaign than we have ever seen. I mean, Gawd, $32 million in a month?!
He's obviously got the intelligence and intellectual curiosity that is necessary in a President. My concerns with him lie with the plans he has put forward dealing with the mess that will be left behind by our current Chimp-in-Chief. They are very vague when it comes to details, ostensibly to garner more supporters attracted to a call for "better health care" or "ending the culture of corruption in Washington."
The second concern I have is his inexperience in dealing with the GOP smear machine. He didn't really face it during his 2004 run for the Senate in Illinois. The press has largely given him a pass on the scrutiny they subjected Hillary to back in the day, though some "Democratic" bloggers over at MyDD are attempting to change that. Search in the diaries, if you want to see what they're posting.
Last month, I penned a post detailing the garbage that we will all have to get used to if Obama is the nominee ...
and it will only get worse. That being said, I have no doubts about his ability to persuade people that he's the one to vote for in a general election against the presumptive GOPer nominee John McCain. He's won more states than Hillary, though he's losing in the delegate count, largely due to the superdelegates that Hillary has convinced to support her.
Sadly, I am no closer to a decision now. So all I can say is this - Hill-Rack the VOTE. |
