Count me as another Edwardian for Hillary

jackson_dem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-12-08 09:29 PM
Original message

Count me as another Edwardian for Hillary

On policy there is not much of a difference between the two. They both will bring change. They both are good Democrats. But if in the end if we lose in November none of this matters. We must take the White House back. If Romney were the nominee perhaps Obama would be a better candidate against the rethugs. However, we will face McCain. McCain's strength is security. Folks still fear another terrorist attack, or even a wave of terror. If we can't clear the security thereshold we can't win. No one cares about how great your speeches are if they believe you can't prevent thugs from flying planes in American buildings. Hillary Clinton neutralizes McCain on security and beats him on domestic issues. Obama would be the least experienced nominee in at least a century and arguably ever. He will get eaten alive on security by McCain. If Kerry couldn't match Bush on security there is no way in hell Obama can match McCain.

There is a lot of talk about "change." Hillary brings basically every "change" the "agent of change" brings. Choosing between the two is not about change, unless you are so superficial you think "Obama" is a meaningful change over the name "Clinton."

On policy where they differ I am attracted to Hillary's trade positions. It is one thing which drew me to Edwards. Hillary and Obama are both "free" traders. However, Hillary is marginally better. Hillary will review all trade agreements to see if they are working for the people. Obama will review only NAFTA. Hillary will also have a time-out on trade agreements, a long sought labor goal. They also differ on meeting with foreign leaders. Both are willing to open discussions with all foreign countries. Obama's goes about it in a naive way. The rethugs will run numerous ads about him wanting to play poker with Ahmedinijad, further damaging Obama's security credentials (him not voting on the 9/11 commission recommendation implementation act is another major self-inflicted blow on security from Obama).

I went back and read Obama's book again after Edwards dropped out. The policy in the book is Democratic boilerplate. There isn't anything in there that is revolutionary. I don't see there was so much hoopla about it. Well, I do know, but...He seems obsessed with working with the rethugs. His central assumption is everyone has the same goals and if we only talked to them, held their hands long enough, they would suddenly see the light and adopt the Democratic agenda. That is fantasy. Obamites will say, well, that isn't what he means. He is only talking about uniting Americans, not the parties. As our history shows you can't unite the people without uniting the parties! The few times in the 18th and early 19th centuries we had real unity in the country were not coincidentally when we had only one national party (Federalists first, then the Democrats during the "era of Good Feelings" and to a lesser extent during the Age of Jackson) . Parties naturally clash. Parties have followers. They will push their followers to disagreement. Even FDR never won more than 61% of the vote. Obama's view also ignores the fact there are fundamental ideological disagreements between the parties. You can't triangulate them away.

All this is not to say Obama sucks. He would make a good president and if he wins I will happily support him. He has a great plan to open up government and I hope he pushes it in the Senate. However, he is not the right candidate for our time. If this were 2000 I may have supported him. I hope Hillary wins and then Obama would make a good candidate in 2016. Hillary has proven she is tough enough to take on the rethugs. The Clintons have a great record against the rethugs (something like 10-1). She knows what it will take to get things done in Washington. Hillary Clinton. Ready to change. Ready to lead. Ready to win.