|
I have steadfastly remained on the fence in the race for the Democratic nomination. However, I find myself moving off the fence and wanted to share my thinking (with the hope that I am not starting a flame war in doing so).
First and foremost, I should be clear that I approach the issue of who to support from a totally pragmatic perspective. I want a candidate that can win. Period. That may bother some people who think that it means I have no principles, but I can live with that criticism. What I can't live with is another four to eight years of repubs controlling the executive branch (and by extension, the judiciary).
With that in mind, I have always considered Clinton, Obama and Edwards (the only candidates I felt were ever serious contenders for the nomination) as nominees who could defeat the repub candidate and I would have no problem in voting for any of them. If anything, I was probably leaning a bit towards Edwards based on my belief that he might be more acceptable to the electorate at large than either Clinton or Obama.
However, Edwards never did catch on and now he's gone. As between Obama and Clinton, I see strenghs and weaknesses in both. Obama's "newness" is both an advantage, in that I think it attracts people who have not previously gotten involved in politics and who are ready for "change", and a disadvantage, because many will consider him too inexperienced or untested. (I personally am not concerned about Obama's experience or lack thereof; my only reason for mentioning it is that my perception is that some voters may be concerned).
As for Clinton, her lack of "newness" is also both a blessing and a curse. She is a known entity. Her husband's presidency, particularly in comparison to the past eight years, looks pretty good and that attracts a lot of Democrats who have been active in the party through both the good times and the lean times. On the other hand, she is a polarizing figure to many. Its unfair that this is the case, but its undeniably true. I think she, like Bill before her, can overcome that and win against any of the potential repubs, particularly because of her appeal to women, but overall I'm not sure if the number of "ABC" voters doesn't offset at least in some significant measure, the number of voters that she brings in that would not previously have paid attention to the campaign.
Ultimately, my leaning towards Obama is based on the sense that I have that his message of "change" (whether or not you believe it means anything in reality) is resonating with a lot of voters, particularly independents and those who have not gotten involved in the political process in the past. Does he have the potential to push away voters, particularly those who with deep set racial biases? Yes. But I think a lot of those voters, sadly, also would be alienated by a female candidate. So on balance, I see the Obama candidacy of having more potential upside for exciting a part of the electorate that hasn't been active.
I think that either a clinton candidacy or an obama candidacy could generate a lot of excitement. But at the moment, I'm personally feeling that this sense of excitement surrounds the Obama campaign more than the Clinton campaign. Maybe its just an infatuation with the new and unknown -- and like all infatuations, it will diminish. But at least for the moment, that feeling of excitement is drawing me in and pulling me off the fence in Obama's direction.
Feel free to comment.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
