Both Sides of the Fence

Many of my acquaintances of the democrat party persuasion harbor a dislike for Senator Clinton because of the overriding aura of "entitlement" with regard to her Whitehouse run.

Frankly, they're resentful of being taken for granted by the senator from New York and distrustful that all of her positions have been carefully nuanced by focus groups.

To them, Barack Obama is a breath of fresh air.  A more genuine candidate so to speak.

Me, I'm just plain tired of the Clintons.  

I am also tired of the Bushes.

Illegitimi Non Carborundum!

Tom

Interesting post.  While I detest Hillary Clinton and find Obama interesting, HRC is the only adult in the Democrat field.  If Obamania carries him to the nomination, it will be interesting to see if Democrats will have buyer's remorse.  The problem with having a crush is that you eventually get to know what the person is really like.

With regard to the GOP, Huckabee is the Republican reincarnation of Bill Clinton...can talk you into believing something entirely different from what he is actually saying.  Must be something in the water in Hope, Arkansas.

Most people are tired of the Bushes and the Clintons.  Which is too bad since if Jeb Bush's last name was Smith, there would not be the mess that is the GOP field.

How secure do you feel that Obama will actually represent the ideas he is spouting? He seems to flip flop. Case in point, the war in Iraq. He says he is against the war, yet voted for more funding. When asked in 2003 and 2004 if he would support the war, he said no. I think its convient to say he is against the war and for the troops. With that line of thinking we will never get them home. He needs to take a stance and stick to it. I'm not sure I am willing to vote him into the most powerful position in the world to SEE if he can stick to his guns.

Not that Clinton gets my vote yet, but its something to think about.

Jennifer

I understand that flip-flopping can show a lack of character and a willingness to conform to interest groups and what's best politically, but it seems to me that candidates criticize each other way too much about changing ideas. A lot of the time it's much better to change course if something is or isn’t working than to stick to what you've always said and done. I'm not saying that this is totally relevant to the Iraq example, but I just want to say I'm a big Obama fan. Like he said when Clinton accused him of being only talk during the debates, it's important for a president to be a good speaker when he's dealing with Congress or foreign nations or whatever. And there’s the inspiring faith and hope thing, too.

Guy,

Obama's older than Teddy Roosevelt and JF Kennedy were when they became president, so I'm not sure what you mean by Hillary being the only adult.

As for the adult/age question, the Republican candidates looked like the faces of Christmas past to me, scary and gaunt and. . . oldschool. But that's just visceral.

I'd love to hear you say something substantive about the candidates and the issues--try the Vote Smart website if you need data.

Christine

Jennifer,

I certainly agree that Obama--and most of the Democratic candidates except Kuchinich--are squishy on the war.

But personally, the "flip-flopping" rhetoric doesn't work for me. It's appropriate for people to change course when they've made a mistake. I agree with you about the "against the war but for the soldiers" dodge.

If you look at the Vote Smart website, you'll see a category on issue positions, or "political courage." The group has been asking candidates to post their positions on important topics, and each year, fewer do. This year, even some who originally started this survey, like McCain, refused to answer. Only Edwards, Gravel, and one other candidate had the guts to do so.

Seems to me that we can't know at this point who to vote for. So I'm   hoping for substance to come out of what Guy calls the "Obamarama."

Hillary's got the goods. Edwards has the guts and ethical purity around campaign contribution and influence. Too bad you can't merge them with Obama. . .

Christine

My term "adult" refers to the depth of the candidate and not their age.  It means precisly the same as your statement of "Clinton’s ideas and plans are richer, deeper, more specific, more nuanced, and altogether better."   Although I strongly disagree with the better part.  Obama and Edwards are lightweights who have nothing behind their rhetoric.

Your post is as much about the style of the candidates as it is to the issues and I was responding the the style part.  Don't worry, I will have plenty of substance to offer between now and november.  But since HRC turned it around in NH due to a stylistic ploy, it remains a very important part of the process.

I find it interesting that a person who works in the aging industry and has commented on agism, etc has a visceral reaction of people as "scary, gaunt and old school."  

Everyone gets the term flip-flop wrong.  To change a stance on an issue is a flip, to change it back is a flip-flop.   Many people change on an issue based upon their experiences, which is fine and acceptable if people see it as genuine and not a change for political convienience.

The best part of the whole thing right now is that it is a true contest thus far on both sides....not a coronation.

Here is some substance on the candidates and issues.

insertwittyblogtitlehere-tosaguy.blogspot.com

Guy,

I agree that it's good that we've now got a genuine horse race!

I thought a long time about giving my real response to the appearance of the Republican candidates on stage with the Democratic ones following the debate. And I decided to be honest. We were talking about visceral response, not calculated spin.

Being a champion of aging well (as opposed to being "anti-aging") doesn't require you to deny that we all get old--and it shows.

As I know well and you will see someday.

But you're quite right: looking old and tired isn't a reliable reflection of what's going on inside.

Christine