Skip to main content

Hillary over Obama

I support Hillary over Obama. Why?
  • Both have a level of idealism, but Clinton mixes in a healthy dose of pragmatism. I watched Obama speak a couple times and was inspired. I saw him speak a couple more times and thought "enough with the pretty-talk." Although he follows Frank Luntz' rules of communication really well, the debates expose Hillary's dominance when it comes down to brass tacks in policy. I am longing for a president that educates the American people on the complexity of issues, rather than sticking to simplistic populist themes.
  • Hillary proved, in Congress, that she could reach across party lines and work professionally even with people who had worked to demonize her. That's really what we're looking for. Obama is not the first campaigner to say "I'm a uniter, not a divider." It's easy to say, but very hard to do.
  • Obama is putting himself farther to the left on Iraq than reality will allow if he becomes president. He's doing that for political gain, and I respect Hillary more for telling the truth even though it has a cost in delegates. Don't think for a minute that Obama or anyone else will continue pulling out troops when Iran cranks up their operations in Iraq, there is a humanitarian crisis, and oil suppies are threatened. We are not the only ones capable of a surge, given the right strategic opportunity. Obama's brand of idealism is nice--to a point--and that point is reached when he's the one making decisions. Over a long presidential campaign against a tough Republican candidate, people will start to realize that "let's get outta there" is not an overall security or foreign policy strategy. George W. Bush is another guy who believed he was "right on day one", and look where it got us.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Real Estate in America

We sold our house this summer and bought a new home. The experience has led me to reflect on homes and home-buying in America. As in any industry, there are good and bad incentives at work in real estate. A home seller would like to get the highest price for their house and sell it in a reasonable period of time. The industry operates on a commission system so that the agent seeks to sell the house at a higher price. This incentive works, but only to a point. Consider the impact of $5000 on the seller vs. the agent. Six percent of $5000 is $300. After the realty company and purchasing agent take their cut, the agent isn't left with much. A $5000 difference in the price of the house means little to the agent, but a lot to the home owner. Does an agent become successful by getting the highest price or by turning over lots of houses? The answer is obvious. An agent's ideal world is not one where people get exactly the right price for their homes, it is a world where everyone is wi...
2 comments
Read more

New Yorker letter to editor

(In The New Yorker, 2/4/08, p5) Jeanne Guillemin, a senior fellor in MIT's Security Studies Program, wrote an excellent letter to the editor regarding how Americans talk about casualties. I'm unable to find a link to a full-text example, but here is an excerpt: "In wars since 1945, American combat mortality figures have sharply declined, while the exclusivity of the American claim on memorialization has intensified, as if U.S. soldiers were the only casualties in Korea or Vietnam or, more recently, Iraq, and the deaths of many thousands of civilians killed in those distant conflicts merited no acknowledgment and carried no meaning. Whose deaths matter and whose do not always tells a great deal about American politics and culture."
1 comment
Read more

Voter Fraud

There's been a lot of talk in Wisconsin about voter fraud and what needs to be done to prevent voter fraud. I'd like to address what the real voter fraud is and what it is not. There has been no substantial voter fraud proven in this state in recent memory. No statistically significant voter fraud has even been alleged. The accusations that are tossed around have more to do with someone standing too close to a polling station when they hand out literature than with someone actually voting in an illigitimate way. One couple in a recent election voted by absentee, then again at the polling station. They were caught easily. The system worked. The fraud that is used to justify so-called voter reform is not a problem. It's not just fear of getting caught that deters voter fraud today. In modern America, voter fraud is by-and-large a very inefficient way to influence an election. You have to find a group of people who are willing to commit crimes, you have to subvert the system a...
1 comment
Read more