So it came down to two issues for me -- the level of detail and thoroughness of various plans (esp. universal health care) and the candidates' stand on (the Iraq) war.
Clinton clearly has the better resume on the first count -- meticulous and well-crafted plans all around, reflecting her experience and how deeply she cares about issues. For example, see this Krugman article (timed slightly poorly, coming as it did the day before Super Tuesday, compared to the Kennedy family endorsement, which gave voters some time to let it sink in) for a nice analysis on how the Clinton health care plan would cover nearly twice as many people as the Obama plan would.
On the Iraq war front, Obama had the clarity of thought to step up in October 2002 (on Gandhi's birthday, in fact) and call it a dumb and rash war, adding:
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
In a matter with complex details, Obama (and his team) didn't possibly have the best analyses of their health care package, but that's something that is fixed at a smaller cost: the studies of the kind Krugman points out might lead to Obama's plan being revised, Obama might simply incorporate several elements of Clinton's health care proposal, etc. However, in a matter of international significance, in a matter that involved serious cost (and not just in dollars) to the country, Hillary Clinton failed, where the junior senator from Illinois displayed tremendous foresight and levelheadedness.
For this reason, I voted for Obama.
The vote is also strategic, to some extent: my thinking is that McCain (or any of the other Republican candidates) might find Hillary an easier opponent to defeat simply because I think that America is less racist than it is sexist. And that is an outcome that I wish to avoid entirely.
8 comments:
Don't the votes so far indicate that America is more racist than sexist?
About 80% of African-Americans (both men and women) voted for Obama....
Good qn, anon #1. See the reporting here (and other similar ones) that has a lot of stats (based on exit polls) about how the 4 combinations (WM / WF / BM / BF) voted for Clinton and Obama, and draw what conclusions you will about the racist/sexist behavior of various blocks of voters...
The "here" in the previous comment should link here...
Thanks for the link. I read the previous article on cnn and had drawn a spontaneous conclusion. Evidently it is more complicated! But clearly US is very racist as well as sexist.
Well, Obama said all that about the Iraq war (and I agree with everything he said, he nailed it..etc etc) in 2002 when he was not in office (I think he got elected in 2004). I don't know what he would done if he was in office when they all voted to go into War. Had he voted against the war, people would have trashed him as non-patriotic etc etc...Don't you think?
I think it is easy to come up with great comments from the sidelines.
Anon, good comment about "commenting from the sidelines". You're right, it is impossible to know how Obama would've voted had he been in the US Senate. However he was not a political nobody -- he was a member of the Illinois state senate, and it was a public speech.
Okay...Agreed, he is levelheaded and can communicate very well, had the foresight..etc.
I was really hoping that the PA primary would put an end to this Obama/Clinton race. Why do you think he is not able to pull a convincing victory?
Do you still think America is less racist than sexist? Look at what has happened to Republicans after they picked a woman VP.
Given the state of the nation it should be a no brainer victory for the democrats, but it is not so just because of race. How sad!
McCain pulled a Karl Rove type strategy!
Post a Comment