|
I didn't support either one of these candidates by a long shot, and still can't get enormously enthusiastic about either, though he or she will get my vote. Their positions aren't precisely the same, but on the broad spectrum from center to left, they're both fairly centrist, and similar in all but the most picayune details with a slightly wider wedge of daylight dividing them on health care.
It's great that you advocate for your candidate, but don't fall into the trap of demonizing the other candidate, especially when he wouldn't govern substantially differently from the way Senator Clinton would. Senator Obama's campaign is simply countering - quite well - the Clinton campaign's thrust toward framing Obama as a silver-tongued empty suit. This is hard-fought primary politics, all of it, and it's not been nearly as dirty as I feared it would be.
Since you mention trivializing, I suggest you might be trivializing Senator Obama, who stands a very good chance of being our nominee. Either of these candidates could do a very decent job as President. He, I think, might be able to do better than that, but we ought to be realistic about what the next President (a Democrat, for sure) can actually achieve.
Sorry if I seem preachy about this, but your post got me thinking about this more directly than I have since Kucinich & Edwards dropped out. There are appealing things about both the two remaining candidates, and less than appealing things as well. I barely hold onto any faith in the power of politics to again act as an agent of progressive change in my lifetime, and I don't expect any real progressive fireworks from either of the senators. I'll settle for incremental fixes, maybe a bigger fix here and there, and that will have to be enough for now.
|